Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MR. SPEAKER SELWYN LLOYD'S RETIREMENT

The Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. James Hamilton): I have a message from Her Majesty the Queen in reply to a Loyal and Dutiful Address from this House.
I have to inform the House on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the Address of Tuesday to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty
That she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of Her Royal Favour upon the Right Hon. John Selwyn Brooke Lloyd, CH, CBE, TD, QC, DL, MP, for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House, and assuring Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think fit to be incurred upon that account this House will make good the same.
has been presented to Her Majesty and Her Majesty has been pleased to receive the same very graciously and has commanded me to acquaint this House that Her Majesty is desirous, in compliance with the request of Her faithful Commons to confer upon the Right Hon. John Selwyn Brooke Lloyd some signal mark of Her Royal Favour and Her Majesty understands that the House of Commons has adopted such measures as may be necessary for the accomplishment of this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Housing Corporation

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he remains satisfied with the development of the Housing Corporation.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): As the first Minister to answer a Question after your appointment, Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of the Department, congratulate you and wish you all the best for the future?
The answer to the Question is: "Yes, Sir". The Housing Corporation has tackled with vigour and imagination the duties imposed by the Housing Act 1974, including the consideration of about 2,000 applications from housing associations seeking registration. The Corporation has also worked out a regional strategy to ensure that housing association projects are financed in areas where the need is greatest.

Mr. Watkinson: As the first Back Bencher to ask a Question in your tenure of office, Mr. Speaker, may I add my warmest congratulations to you, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: May I say that I am obliged and that I shall take it as read for everyone else?

Mr. Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will the overall strategy of the Housing Corporation now be directed towards the rehabilitation of housing rather than the building of new properties? Is it the intention of the Corporation to direct its funds basically towards towns at the expense of rural areas? Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that rural areas such as mine have acute housing needs both in new houses and in rehabilitation? Will he ensure that those areas are not neglected?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me say at once that I hope that we shall begin as we shall continue and that brief supplementary questions, which will be much fairer to those with Questions further down the Order Paper, will be helpful to us all.

Mr. Armstrong: The Housing Corporation is working within an overall policy of bringing housing supply to areas where there is acute housing stress. But it has a statutory duty and it is not for the Department continually to interfere.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister accept that some of us are not at all happy with the progress made by the Corporation since there have been innumerable delays in registering housing associations? Is there any chance of further finance being made available to the Corporation so that housing associations can arrange their finance when they have been properly registered rather than having to go through local authorities, which at the moment seems rather difficult?

Mr. Armstrong: Our understanding is that when there is some delay it is due to the anxiety of the Housing Corporation quite properly to see that the resources available are used where they are most needed. I could not give any definite answer about extra money today.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I shall comply with your request for brevity, Mr. Speaker. In view of the tragic recent deaths of old people from hypothermia, will the Minister discuss immediately—within a matter of days—the mass-scale insulation of houses, possibly along with and as part of the job-creation programme?

Mr. Armstrong: This is a very serious matter. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard the question and will give it urgent consideration.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Will the Minister estimate what resources have been made available to the Housing Corporation in the current year and what level of subsidy will result therefrom? I quite understand that he may not be able to give the figures now, but will he put them in the Official Report?

Mr. Armstrong: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the information.

Land Acquisition and Management Schemes

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities did not submit their land

acquisition and management schemes before 31st December 1975.

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities applied for extension of time for submission to him of their land acquisition and management schemes.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): No land acquisition and management schemes were submitted to my right hon. Friend by 31st December 1975 since none was required to be submitted by that date. Seven authorities have formally requested an extension of time.

Mr. Costain: Did that fact surprise the Minister? Will he make certain that local authorities do not take on extra staff to comply with this regulation?

Mr. Silkin: Nothing surprises the Minister. The Act clearly stated that the land acquisition and management schemes "shall be made"—not "submitted"—
not later than 31st December 1975, or such later date as the Secretary of State may agree in any particular case.
I hope that the existence of LAMS, so far from increasing staff, will at last, after the disastrous reorganisation of local government in 1972, begin to cut the numbers.

Mr. Grylls: Is the Minister aware of the present enormous administrative burden of the land nationalisation scheme on local authorities? Is he especially aware that in Surrey, where £9 million has been taken off the rate support grant to be transferred to the London boroughs, it is difficult to decide priorities? Which does the Minister consider most important—providing more nursery schools and other vital services of that kind, or setting up bureaucratic schemes that nobody really wants?

Mr. Silkin: The scheme is essential to the twin aims of positive planning and restoring to the community the development value that the community has itself created. Surrey's great difficulties are not a problem with which the community land scheme is concerned as the expenses of the acquisition of land by local authorities are not rateborne expenses.

Mr. Raison: Will the Minister tell the House how many schemes were and were not made by 31st December 1975? Will


he now apologise to the House for his failure to accepet many Opposition amendments proposing that the date be deferred?

Mr. Silkin: Judging by the Opposition's questions, it seems that hon. Gentlemen have not read the Act fully, as they have been talking about "submission" and not about "making". The plain fact is that Opposition Members, some of whom were asking for an extension of six months and in other cases a year, have been proved wrong. The overwhelming mass of local authorities have been in a position to agree their land acquisition and management schemes and there does not seem to be much difficulty.

Water Survey

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the detailed results of the recent water survey.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): Every effort is being made to have the report published before the Easter Recess.

Mr. Rooker: Having expressed grave concern before a Select Committee in December about the quality of tap water, why did my right hon. Friend slip into the back pages of Hansard two days before the Christmas Recess in reply to a planted Written Question details showing that 4 million houses in this country—according to the World Health Organisation's figures—receive unsafe tap water first thing in the morning?

Mr. Howell: I do not slip answers to Written Questions into the back pages of Hansard in any circumstances. The report was made available to my Department a few days previously and I took the immediate step of trying to ensure that the information was available. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend asked about 20 follow-up Questions, which I was glad to answer.

Historic Cities and Towns (Heavy Traffic)

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest plans for freeing historic cities from heavy long-distance road traffic.

The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): The Department's road programme includes plans for bypassing another 20 historic towns and villages by the early 1980s. Proposals for a national system of lorry routes which would help to keep heavy lorries away from environmentally sensitive areas if they have no business to transact there, were announced to the House on 22nd January and are to be discussed with the organisations concerned.

Mr. Lane: Will the Minister confirm that, whatever may be the effect of the Government's public expenditure review on the whole national road programme, the relief of historic cities, including my own constituency, will continue to be given the highest priority?

Dr. Gilbert: I have no difficulty whatever in accepting the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my hon. Friend also plan to free citizens—historic and younger ones—from the pollution, mutilation and death coming from heavy lorries using residential streets which they were never intended to use?

Dr. Gilbert: I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments, but I must point out to him that local authorities already have power to deal with problems like this in residential areas.

Sir W. Elliott: Will the Minister bear in mind the present problems in the historic city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne where the improvement in the urban motorway system has led to considerable difficulty, as he knows, in the environment of Newcastle-upon-Tyne? Will he consider in such circumstances giving a high priority to heavy lorries avoiding residential areas?

Dr. Gilbert: I am certainly aware of the difficulties in the Gosforth area. Those difficulties are being studied.

Mr. Jay: Would it not be wise for my hon. Friend to give priority in road building schemes to areas where there is a local demand for them rather than to areas where there is a great deal of local opposition?

Dr. Gilbert: As my right hon. Friend will realise, the difficulty is that there is often a demand for schemes which are


resented by those on whom the impact is more immediate. Part of the difficulty is to weigh the national claims and claims for schemes from different areas against the claims of quite legitimate local objections.

Housing Land

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from the House-Builders' Federation regarding the supply of land for private house building; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to improve the availability of land for development.

Mr. John Silkin: The Community Land Act gives local authorities new responsibilities and powers for ensuring that land is available to meet the needs of both public and private development. I had a meeting with representatives of the House-Builders' Federation on 28th January, following a letter from it on 9th January, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied on 21st January.

Mr. Latham: Does the Minister realize that there is a growing view in the industry that, because of the Community Land Act, within the next two years there will be a quite disastrous shortage of building land and that, in the industry's own words, will bring the house building programme to a complete halt?

Mr. Silkin: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. His view of the effect of the Community Land Act was not basically one of the subjects we discussed with the House-Builders' Federation. Certainly the Federation raised points ancillary to it but, equally, it raised other matters—for example, planning procedures and how long they took, appeals, and even the density of planning permissions.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend inform local authorities such as the Liverpool City Council that where land is available for the building of necessary local authority housing because of long housing lists, it should not be turned

over to private developers until the needs of the local community are met, especially those desperately in need of houses to rent? Will he make it absolutely clear to local authorities that steps to let private developers have such land will be frowned upon by the Government?

Mr. Silkin: As I said earlier, one of the basic principles of the Community Land Act is positive planning. That means a sensible assessment of what is needed for local authority house building and private house building. The change that will take place following the Act is that all development land will progressively come under the control of the local authorities.

Mr. Graham Page: Why shou1ci not land lying idle in big cities such as Liverpool be turned over to and developed by private enterprise?

Mr. Heffer: Because people need houses to rent.

Mr. Silkin: I was careful to avoid discussing any particular town and I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not do so. I was endeavouring to deal with general principles. Land required for housing should meet the needs of the community, both socially and for planning purposes, whatever those needs may be.

Railways

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he proposes to have with the leaders of the railway trade unions about the future level of investment in the railway industry.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The consultations which I have already announced will certainly cover investment in the railway industry.—[Vol. 903, c. 362–3.]

Mr. Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend confirm that British Railways have been advised that investment is to be held at £238 million during the coming years? Will he also meet the railway trade unions in the near future to discuss this vital subject?

Mr. Crosland: What my hon. Friend said about the level of investment is correct. I had one meeting with the railway unions before Christmas. I have since met the TUC Transport Industries Committee and made it clear to the TUC and the individual unions that in the process of consultation I shall hope to have further meetings with them.

Mr. Durant: When will the right hon. Gentleman provide us with the results of his discussions? There is widespread anxiety amongst commuters and railway men in my area. When shall we get some answers?

Mr. Crosland: I have already said that in the next few weeks I hope to issue a consultation document and then to embark on a very full process of consultation with a view later in the year to issuing a statement as a White Paper or in some other form.

Mr. Bagier: Does my right hon. Friend confirm that the document will be not a White Paper or a Green Paper but a genuine consultative document? Does he agree that to state firmly at this stage that £238 million per year will be the investment for the next five years could and will bring about the situation about which the three railway unions have been trying to warn the public?

Mr. Crosland: I certainly confirm that the paper, which will be issued in the next few weeks, will be a consultation document in the full meaning of the word. As my hon. Friend knows by now, I do not accept the view of the railway unions about the consequences of this level of investment.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the consultative document will be debated in the House? Will he also assure the House that any fare increases will be equitably spread and that there will be no question of discriminating against commuters?

Mr. Crosland: Having a debate in the House, which I should greatly welcome, is obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Skinner: And the Opposition.

Mr. Crosland: And the Opposition, certainly. The whole object of the trans-

port policy review is to try to bring a greater degree of equity into a transport policy which fundamentally is in a state of complete confusion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are similar Questions later on the Order Paper.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the likely size of the rail network and the quality of its services based on a five-year investment level of £238 million.

Dr. Gilbert: I have no evidence that stabilising investment at about its present level—the highest for many years—need cause massive reductions in either the present railway network or quality of service.

Mr. Cook: Then can my hon. Friend assure the House that the consultative document will reiterate the Government's commitment to the present 11,000 miles of rail network? Will he accept that many Members' including myself, who represent constituencies with less than 20 per cent. car ownership find it very difficult to explain to our constituents why, at a time when the Government are massively expanding investment in the car industry, we appear to be proposing a major cut in public transport investment?

Dr. Gilbert: There has been a continuing trend under Governments of both complexions for the balance of public expenditure on transport to swing against the construction of roads in favour of public transport. I have already made it clear that my right hon. Friend and I have no intention of reversing or even stopping that trend.

Mr. McCrindle: Can the Minister confirm or deny reports that, with a view to encouraging the transfer of the transportation of goods from road to rail, substantial additional taxes are to be expected on road transport? Will he confirm that, as some goods cannot be conveyed in any way other than by road, to impose such additional taxes would be to increase the cost of living?

Dr. Gilbert: The consultative document will address itself to the proposition in the Socialist Commentary booklet


on transport policy that all modes of transport should carry their full costs, and that includes their social and environmental costs.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the railway unions and the Railways Board regard the present level of investment proposed by the Secretary of State as insufficient to carry out the necessary modernisation? If this is continued for a further five years, it can result only in a reduction in the railway network.

Dr. Gilbert: I point out to my hon. Friend that rail investment is now higher than at any time since the mid-1960s. That is in real terms and in absolute terms, even after allowing for inflation. He will also be aware that, after allowing for inflation, other support for the railways is running at historically high levels. What is more, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, all that we have asked the railways to do is to cut the deficit on freight account. There has been no request as yet to reduce the deficit on passenger traffic, which is running at a historically record level.

Mr. Banks: In view of the Minister's reply, will he give an assurance that the Leeds-Harrogate-York line or any part of it will not be closed under any new proposals?

Dr. Gilbert: I am not able to give denials or assurances about any stretch of line before the consultative document is published, and that will be very shortly.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that not only British Rail but the National Freight Corporation and the National Bus Company must have their future investment plans settled? Will he accept that in any announcement of British Rail's investment intentions he should announce his intentions for other nationalised modes of transport?

Dr. Gilbert: I have no difficulty in accepting my hon. Friend's proposition. Perhaps it is necessary for me to repeat that the present review of policy is not confined to the railways. It is an overall review of transport policy, involving all modes.

Mr. Ford: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what represen-

tations have been received by his Department about the future of railway services arid whether he will make a statement.

Dr. Gilbert: We have in recent weeks received over 20,000 representations about the future of the railways. The vast majority of these have been in the form of tear-off slips bearing identical wording.

Mr. Ford: In any future review of rail services will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that socially necessary railway lines in Yorkshire are safeguarded, bearing in mind that it is a low-wage area and that the ownership of private motor vehicles there is well below the national average?

Dr. Gilbert: Those considerations will come under scrutiny in the review that my right hon. Friend was discussing earlier.

Mr. Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman remove uncertainty and doubt by confirming that work on the advanced passenger train will continue in view of its substantial export potential?

Dr. Gilbert: It would be wrong for me to anticipate the result of the review. I must ask hon. Gentlemen to be patient a little longer.

Mr. Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Walter Johnson. I apologise—Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

Mr. Whitehead: I make allowances for your Welsh squint, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) had risen earlier. That was why I called him.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, whatever else the railways will be, they will not be bus routes? Would he care to repudiate or publish—better still, publish and repudiate—the grotesque document which has been circulated within the Department suggesting that the railways be torn up and replaced by bus routes?

Dr. Gilbert: I have already made it clear that the Department has considerable reservations about various proposals in Professor Hall's report. The report has been published and is available to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Channon: Does the Minister agree even in advance of the White Paper that, if there were to be any prospect of commuter fares going up by the 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. rumoured, that would be unfair and would cause great hardship to tens of thousands?

Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend pointed out that difficult questions of balancing equities were involved in doing anything to restore the finances of British Railways. It is beyond question that in certain parts of the country the major proportion of the subsidy to keeping fares down goes to the better-off sections of the community.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister assure the House that there is no truth whatever in the rumour that the line from Glasgow to Stranraer is to be cut?

Dr. Gilbert: I am not aware of the rumour.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my hon. Friend comment on the ludicrous situation in Bristol where a land use transportation study has put forward comprehensive proposals to keep traffic out of the city at the same time as British Railways are to close a valuable commuter rail service within the city?

Dr. Gilbert: I am not aware of British Rail's closing any commuter service in Bristol or elsewhere. No proposals for such a closure have come to me.

Vehicle Testing Stations

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now fix a date to pay an official visit to a vehicle testing station.

Dr. Gilbert: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave him on Tuesday 27th January.—[Vol. 904, c. 149–50.]

Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that when he visits a testing station he will inevitably find vehicles that fail the test because their brakes or steering are dangerous being driven straight back on to the roads? Are not the drivers of those vehicles in breach of the law? What does he propose to do to prevent vehicles known by the testing stations to be dangerous from going back on the roads, where they are a potential menace?

Dr. Gilbert: Not all vehicles that fail the MoT test would be in breach of the minimum legal requirements. However, I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. and learned Friend is seeking to achieve. He will be aware that there are considerable difficulties about giving MoT testers the powers that he contemplates.

Mr. Fry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the findings of the Consumers' Association and roadside spot checks by the police show that a high percentage of new vehicles have wrongly adjusted headlamps? Will he therefore re-examine the requirements for testing lights before reintroducing the headlamps regulations which he had to withdraw just before Christmas?

Dr. Gilbert: If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention during our debate on the order relating to headlamps he would have noticed that I made proposals for tightening up the MoT test in precisely that respect.

Development Land Tax

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has sought comments from the Advisory Group on Commercial Property Development on the development land tax.

Mr. John Silkin: Development land tax is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Advisory Group took account of the development land tax proposals in its report on the implications of the community land scheme for commercial property development.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister accept that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have some departmental responsibility for the availability of land for commercial and industrial development? Does he accept that the first report of the Advisory Group on Commercial Property Development was widely held to be a most useful document? Does he further realise that it would have been even more useful had it been published in time to be taken into account by those engaged in the somewhat lengthy consideration of the Community Land Act? In the light of any comments in that first report on the rate of tax, will he now ask for a report from that group on that specific point?

Mr. Silkin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Pilcher Committee produced a valuable report. I am sorry that he takes a slightly jaundiced view of the time of its publication. The report has been found to be useful and has been referred to quite considerably, not least by the hon. Gentleman himself.
The report mentioned the development land tax and made the rather interesting comment that it might have been expected that voices would have been raised against the basic principle of recouping development value to the community. It went on to say that no such voice was heard and that, on the contrary, all had accepted the necessity. It continued:
There should therefore be the most careful monitoring …".

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his hon. Friends are keen to see the Bill on the statute book and in operation at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Silkin: I shall certainly tell my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is not aware of it, of my hon. Friend's comment.

Mr. Rossi: Although it is a matter primarily for the Treasury, will the right hon. Gentleman tell his colleagues there that it appears to be generally accepted opinion outside the House that a rate of 30 per cent. development land tax is far too high and that its only effect will be to stop land from coming forward voluntarily for development?

Mr. Silkin: At the risk of intervening in what is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's sources of information are a little too limited and a little too narrow. That is by no means the general view.

Road Sign (Schoolchildren)

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce a road sign to indicate that a length of road is without a footpath and is substantially used by schoolchildren who are obliged to walk in the roadway.

Dr. Gilbert: I shall be happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Is the Minister aware that there are three different signs to

indicate that a motorist may encounter horses and ponies, cattle, or wild animals on the road ahead? It seems that we are rather out of balance in our approach. Should there not be a similar sign indicating that children may be in the road ahead?

Dr. Gilbert: There are signs to indicate the presence of schools and that children may be crossing. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is helpful and constructive and I am hoping to introduce and test provisional signs.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my hon. Friend aware that a sign of this type would be welcome in rural Derbyshire, because an increasing number of schoolchildren are having to walk to school in order that their parents can save the increasing bus fares? Will he investigate the operations of the National Bus Company in Derbyshire to ensure that increases in fares, which seem to occur every few months, are genuinely due to rising costs and not to internal inefficiency?

Dr. Gilbert: Naturally we are concerned about the circumstances my hon. Friend has described. He will be aware that the fares that schoolchildren have to pay are partly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who, I know, is also concerned about this matter.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a particular danger when a stretch of pavement normally in use is out of use because of drainage works or road repairs? Will he look into this aspect of the matter?

Dr. Gilbert: I shall be happy to look at any constructive suggestions for road safety.

Mortgages (Older Properties)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations with building societies about increasing their lending on older properties.

Mr. Crosland: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 14th January 1976.—[Vol. 903, c. 372–5.]

Mr. Hooley: But is my right hon. Friend aware that in Sheffield there is some evidence that building societies are drawing arbitrary lines below which they will not lend on certain properties, for example, properties which they regard as being in unsuitable areas? Will he remind the building societies that they have not only a commercial responsibility but some social responsibilities?

Mr. Crosland: I am well aware that the difficulty to which my hon. Friend has referred exists. I am glad to say that the Building Societies Association and the local authority associations had a constructive discussion on 30th January about problems such as that to which my hon. Friend has referred. The meeting agreed to set up a joint working party of officers soon to advise on cuts in local authority lending, the problem of older properties and all the questions to which my hon. Friend has alluded.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that the scheme by which £100 million was set aside by the building societies for local authorities is not working? Therefore, will he authorise local authorities to underwrite the mortgage cases that they send forward to the building societies?

Mr. Crosland: The £100 million scheme, as the House knows, has met with a number of initial difficulties. It is quite incorrect to say that it is not working now. It is working much better than it was three months ago, but, because there are still residual difficulties about the scheme, the building societies and local authorities have agreed to set up a joint working party to attempt to iron out these problems.

Mr. Dykes: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect in the near future to meet the Building Societies Association and individual societies to discuss a reduction in their mortgage rates in view of the recent fall in interest rates?

Mr. Crosland: No, I have no immediate plans to meet them on that subject. We are, of course, constantly in consultation with the building societies about all aspects of the housing market.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend bring his influence to bear upon the building societies to make them

realise that those who are purchasing older properties are often young people starting off their married lives? Does he not consider that we should help them instead of driving them to finance companies, which have their poachers in all areas and which charge these young people tremendous rates of interest on the money they borrow to purchase property?

Mr. Crosland: These are the people whom we want to help most. However, there is more of an overlap between local authorities and building society mortgage lending than most people probably suppose. I am anxious to maintain local authority lending at a level such as will be able to cope with the cases to which my hon. Friend has referred while leaving the building societies primarily to take over cases where in the past there has been a complete overlap between the two types of lending.

M6 (Staffordshire)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of repairing the M6 in Staffordshire; how long this will take to complete; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Gilbert: Approximately 26 miles of M6 in Staffordshire will need repair within the next five years, at a cost of about £10·5 million.
Repair of the five-mile stretch between junctions 13 and 14, known as Stafford bypass will be undertaken this year. The reconstruction work will start in the latter part of April or early in May and will, it is hoped, be completed in the autumn. The estimated cost is £2·5 million.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern among local authorities in the West Midlands that this amount of expensive repair work is having to be done well ahead of the estimated date for such work? Is not this an urgent indication that we need an integrated transport policy which would take a considerable amount of the road traffic off the motorway and transfer it to the railways and thus prevent heavy lorries from pounding away and breaking up the motorway, which in turn means that enormous amounts of money have to be spent on repairing it?

Dr. Gilbert: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's sentiments. Whatever steps should be taken in an integrated transport policy will not succeed in transferring very much of the traffic now travelling on motorways to the railways.

Mrs. Short: Why not?

Dr. Gilbert: The reason why we have had to repair this stretch of the M6 relatively soon after the last repair was that there was a deformation in the wheel tracks of a certain stretch in 1972 which was causing considerable danger.

Lancashire (Transport Services)

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the individual amounts provided for the county of Lancashire in the year 1976–77 for bus revenue support and other transport services, including road maintenance; how this compares with the national average; and whether he will make a statement on his future intentions for supporting bus services where there is a recognised revenue shortfall.

Dr. Gilbert: The total expenditure accepted for transport supplementary grant purposes for Lancashire for 1976–77 is £16·4 million, equivalent to £12 per head compared with a national average of £l6 per head. Of this, £1·6 million is for bus revenue supoprt, which is equivalent to £1·14 per head, compared with a national average of £1·85 per head. The Government's policy on bus revenue support is set out in Circular 125/75 issued by the Department.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. However, will he take it from me that he has recognised the problem and realises that there is a need? Therefore, why does he not give more help?

Dr. Gilbert: Alas, I am unable to give as much help in as many directions as I wish.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety in Lancashire about the length of time being taken in producing a co-ordinated policy on passenger transport, and that this is making it very difficult to provide economic services for bus passengers?

Dr. Gilbert: The introduction of the transport policies and programmes system has been a great help for county councils in focusing their thinking on priorities in the areas for which they are responsible. We shall fairly shortly be coming forward with a consultative document dealing with wider national considerations.

Mr. George Rodgers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of travel by public transport, buses in particular, has risen much faster than the rate of inflation generally? Does he agree that there is a danger that the services in Lancashire will disintegrate totally unless further funds are made available?

Dr. Gilbert: Rates of increase depend on the base year. There was a considerable period in which fares did not rise nearly as fast as the general rate of inflation. I certainly take my hon. Friend's point. That is why last August I invited all the county councils to come back and bid for additional supplementary grant to assist with bus revenue problems. I am glad to say that a great many did so, and I was able to accept virtually all the higher bids.

Mr. Norman Fowler: As it is the Government's declared policy that bus fares should rise, what action does the Minister propose to take in relation to authorities that ignore the Government's advice and put the extra cost on the rates?

Dr. Gilbert: We on the Government side of the House meant what we said when we made it clear that we thought that authorities should be able to decide how to deal with local problems in the light of local needs and that the decision was to be devolved locally. That is quite different from the situation that existed under the previous Administration.

Mr. Les Huckfield: What does my hon. Friend say about his policy in reply to my hon. Friend's Question, particularly the latter part? He has not so far said what he intends to do with bus services with a recognised revenue shortfall. Surely he is not pretending that the circular, which his Department sent out just after Christmas, advocating the liberalisation of licensing laws and allowing minicabs and things like that is the answer to the problems of the National Bus Company.

Dr. Gilbert: The National Bus Company has serious and continuing problems, many of a secular nature deriving from the increase in the ownership of private cars and, in part, the present economic circumstances, which are leaving people with less disposable income.
As regards the relaxation of licensing restrictions, as my hon. Friend is aware, we hope to introduce legislation along those lines, but it will be confined to three or four experimental areas.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give a general authorisation for the payment of improvement grants without authorisation under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1974 up to the maximum discretionary level (i) for houses built before 1919 and (ii) for houses built before 1946 and acquired under the municipalisation programme.

Mr. Armstrong: Initial repairs to newly acquired council property and all improvements to acquired property in housing action areas do not count against the allocations approved under Section 105.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: As far as I heard that reply, I think that it was welcome. Does not my hon. Friend agree, however, that the expenditure on Section 105 grants is probably the most productive, pound for pound, of all expenditure to meet housing need? Is he aware that during the current financial year administrative delays, and particularly the late stage in the year at which information was given to local authorities about the amount that they might spend, have seriously stultified this expenditure? Will he take steps to ensure that in the next financial year authorities are allowed to spend the money more effectively?

Mr. Armstrong: I take on board what my hon. Friend has said. We have already announced the allocations for next year. They were included recently in the Official Report.

Mr. Michael Latham: In order to assist the laudable wish to improve houses built before 1919, would it not be better to save money by stopping municipalisation altogether?

Mr. Armstrong: The evidence that we have is that some very acute housing distress has been met by the allocations. I take a view contrary to that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rossi: Will the Minister confirm that the provisional figures for 1975 show that the total number of improvement grant applications approved was 159,000 compared with 453,000 for 1973, a disastrous and discreditable drop in this vital sector where the resuscitation of our old housing stock is so essential to the wellbeing of our people?

Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman does his case no good by these exaggerations. The figures that he gave are over the whole field, including private improvements, and bear no relation to the tremendous social problem and the reason for our allocations. We are directing resources where they are most desperately needed.

Mr. Rossi: Does the Minister agree that the figure for 1973 for local authorities was 193,000—more than the total provision for 1975 for both sectors?

Mr. Armstrong: I am not denying these figures, but they must be seen against the context of an increase in actual resources of almost 30 per cent. for the housing need of this country, an increase which has been directed to where it is most needed.

Planning Appeals

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against decisions by local planning departments were heard in 1975.

Mr. John Silkin: 11,486 planning appeals were decided during 1975, 3,078 following local inquiries and 8,408 by the written procedure.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend consider examining an awkward feature of planning procedures whereby planning officers recommend acceptance of a submission by developers, the submission is then rejected by the elected representatives of the people, the councilors, and there is then a public inquiry at which planning officers refuse to appear on behalf of the council and ratepayers who employ them


and pay their salaries? This is creating bitterness in local government.

Mr. Silkin: I have not been made aware of this situation and it would require a great deal of thought. After all, if one is to give such authority and independence to local government—as my hon. Friends and I believe to be right—this must in most cases be a matter for local authorities to decide. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me about the matter, I shall certainly look at it.

Mr. Costain: What is the approximate time that it now takes from appeal to decision?

Mr. Silkin: I should need notice of that question. However, the period has shortened very considerably. In part this is because there have not been as many appeals. This improvement goes back to the number of appeals that used to be made in the 1960s—about 430,000—as compared with the bonanza years when they were well over the 600,000 mark, and the general increase in the planning inspectorate during the past few years. However, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the facts.

House Building

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the most up-to-date figures for house building in the public sector; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: I estimate that 173,000 new dwellings were started and 160,000 completed in the public sector in Great Britain in 1975. Starts were therefore up by 18 per cent. on 1974 and 53 per cent. on 1973, and completions by 24 per cent. and 49 per cent. This is encouraging progress and indicates the success of the measures we have taken to reverse the disastrous trend of 1970 and 1973.

Mr. Skinner: There is no doubt that these are better figures, but will my right hon. Friend accept that they are simply not good enough and do not compare with the three years 1966 to 1969 when about 1,200,000 houses were built? To achieve that, we had to take certain decisions with regard to stopping office building. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a need for a

change in the financing system to enable local authorities to improve upon these figures? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long.") Will my right hon. Friend take all possible steps—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two question—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Three."] Two, according to my reckoning. Perhaps he would get the answers to those first.

Mr. Skinner: I shall save the next until tomorrow.

Mr. Crosland: I thought that that was a rather grudging response on the part of my hon. Friend and that he might have been a little more enthusiastic. I am certainly not satisfied with the figures yet, despite the fact of a major improvement. I should certainly like to see the figures rise.
It would be wrong to suppose that, with a regrettably large amount of unemployment in the construction industry, the current tiny amount of office building is having the slightest effect on the house-building programme.

Mr. Michael Latham: As one of the Minister's senior statisticians is represented on it, does the right hon. Gentleman accept the recent report of the NEDC forecasting panel that council house building will drop in 1977?

Mr. Crosland: No, I do not accept it. I read it with some care. I think that forecasts of what are likely to happen two years ahead are rather pointless. I am glad to see that the NEDO has revised substantially upwards its July figures of the likely level of starts and completions for 1976.

Mr. Raison: Before the Minister becomes too complacent, may I ask him whether he accepts that the total housing figures at present are below those at the comparable stage of the last Conservative Government and, taking into account the number of improvement grants, way below those?

Mr. Crosland: The figures I have announced are much higher than those which the Conservative Government left to the incoming Labour Government. The peak figures of new house building occurred not under the Conservative Government but under the last Labour Government.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): When I was Chancellor.

New Palace Yard

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further works in New Palace Yard await completion; what they will cost; and when they will be finished.

Mr. Armstrong: No further works are envisaged, Sir. The works at present in hand will be completed by the end of April.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the whole story of this disgusting and profligate waste of public money show that it should never have been undertaken orginally? Could not the millions of pounds that have been spent so far have been better applied to building houses?

Mr. Armstrong: My hon. Friend could have made that point in the debate. The House decided on the development of the car park.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister accept that this is the longest running farce in London and that we should have had much better cost control over the work that has taken place? It is a very bad example to the general public.

Mr. Armstrong: If the hon. Gentleman would like to table a Question about the detailed costing and the way it was arrived at, I will certainly give the answer.

Direct Labour Departments

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether losses by direct labour departments of local authorities are treated as part of the relevant expenditure upon which rate support grant is based.

Mr. Armstrong: An estimate of the interest charges generated by local authority capital expenditure, whether by direct labour departments or private contractors, forms part of relevant expenditure.

Mr. Ridley: That does not answer the question whether losses form part of relevant expenditure. Is the Minister aware that it is intolerable that ratepayers should be asked to pay more rates to subsidise an activity that is competing with them,

whether in direct labour or in municipal trading? Will he look into the whole situation and have a working party or a Royal Commission investigate abuses?

Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman will know that the work of direct labour departments is regularly tested in competition with private contractors. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Yes, it is. The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of raising this subject in a debate a few days ago when the Government answer was given. Relevant expenditure is indeed considered and is part of the rate support grant.

Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend consider encouraging local authorities to expand and improve direct labour forces to bring down unemployment and put up more houses?

Mr. Armstrong: It is indeed the policy of the Department and of the Government to expand efficient direct labour departments. I remind the House that in the long run public works departments are democratically accountable to the electorate.

Mr. Budgen: Have the Government any proposals for obliging local authorities to draw up their accounts for direct labour departments in such a way that they are all done on a common basis and so that there is no way of shifting losses to other parts of the local authority's empire?

Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman will know that, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced, we have set up a departmental working party to consider accounting and tendering by direct labour departments.

Mr. Speed: As that working party will not be reporting for at least a year, why cannot the Minister accept as an interim measure the CIPFA recommendations, which would do exactly what my hon. Friend has been asking for?

Mr. Armstrong: This question has been asked many times in the House. We have set up the departmental working party, which is a fact-finding exercise, so that we may give the right answers when we have acquired all the information we need.

ICELAND (FISHERIES DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the Icelandic fisheries question. As the House will be aware, the Icelandic Government stated yesterday that they are unable to accept proposals for fishing limitations by British trawlers which were put to them in the recent London talks. The Icelandic Government have, however, expressed readiness to resume talks on a short-term agreement. The British Ambassador in Reykjavik has this morning been in touch with Icelandic officials and I authorised him to reply that, despite our disappointment, we are prepared to explore the prospects of a short-term agreement without prejudice to a longer one. It remains to be seen whether it is possible for the Icelandic Government to make any realistic offer, or, indeed, any offer at all.
The House should be aware that during the London talks the Icelandic Government were not in a position to negotiate and were even unable to agree to temporary arrangements to cover the five-day period during which they were considering the results of the talks. Nevertheless, we shall continue to do our best and British officials are standing by to go to Reykjavik.
As for the immediate future, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is now advising the fishing fleet to resume fishing in the normal way in these international waters, for so they still are, as from midnight tonight. If our trawlers are interfered with, they will be protected. The Government have also invited the industry for urgent talks about the limitations which we would be prepared voluntarily to impose upon ourselves in order to ensure that the British catch does not endanger the conservation of cod stocks. On two occasions in the past I have offered to accept mediation in this matter and the Icelandic Government have refused. I repeat the offer again today. I am conscious of the concern of our NATO allies and shall ensure that they are fully informed of the facts and of our intentions.
The record will show that we seek good relations with our Icelandic neighbours and I believe that many of them feel the same way about us. But no nation has the right unilaterally to impose measures which are unreasonable in themselves and which strike directly at the livelihood of our people in the fishing industry.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our first thoughts lie with the British fishermen on the fishing banks off Iceland—these brave men doing a difficult and dangerous task and going about their legal concerns? Does he agree that the first responsibility of the British Government and of all parties in this Parliament is to them? Is he aware that we share his desire for a settlement and that as long as there is any chance of reaching a settlement we shall do nothing which makes that task more difficult? The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the possibility of a short-term agreement hold out at least some encouragement. Is he aware that, like him, we want good relations with Iceland, one of our NATO allies?
In what circumstances would the right hon. Gentleman feel it appropriate for the Navy to return? Of course, we hope that such circumstances will not arise. Can he tell us where the frigates are now? Could he also hold out some hope to the House that he will devote the same amount of effort in endeavouring to renegotiate the common fisheries policy as he has devoted to some other aspects of Britain's relations with the Common Market?

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said about the British trawler fleet. It has been subjected to considerable harassment and irritation, to put it at its mildest, in the way it has been told to haul its nets and then to start fishing again. A kind of cat-and-mouse game has been played with the fleet, and the fishermen have had to put up with it because we all felt that we should not give those in the Icelandic Government who do not want an agreement any excuse to break off talks. Now the position is different. There are no talks taking place and there is no agreement. Therefore, our fleet is now in what we recognise as international waters,


and if it is interfered with the Navy will protect it. That is the simple position and I wish to go no further than that, except to say that two frigates are now about 200 miles from the main coastline and the third is stationed in Scotland but is able to return.
The question of a common fisheries policy is complicated by the Law of the Sea Conference which will start again in March, though I do not know when or how it will conclude. I have no doubt that a common fisheries policy will have to take account of any changed circumstances resulting from agreements at the conference on extending economic zones or fishing limits.

Mr. James Johnson: I compliment my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the efforts they have made. Is he aware that many people feel that he has leaned over backwards in his attempts to accommodate the Icelanders? Is he aware that there is enormous sadness among those of us who know the Icelanders well and that we hope that an accommodation can somehow be reached? Is he aware that thousands of fishermen and their families are sceptical about the sincerity of some of the members of the Icelandic Cabinet but that we still hope some accommodation will be reached—

Mr. Skinner: You stopped me long before this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let it be quite clear that I do not intend to accept interventions of that sort. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) will appreciate the mood of the House and bring his question to a conclusion.

Mr. Johnson: If there is no agreement and warps are cut, is my right hon. Friend aware that the fishermen, who believe that they are fishing lawfully in international waters, will expect the Navy to go to their aid?

Mr. Callaghan: I note what my hon. Friend says and thank him for it, It is particularly important, when we are dealing with a small nation, that we should not appear to be abusing our position. I can fairly claim that the British Government have put forward every proposal and every conciliatory suggestion. We

have made every attempt to come to some agreement. I repeat that I am not certain that the Icelandic Government are in a position to come to an agreement. We shall certainly go on trying to get an agreement and endeavouring not to make things more difficult, in the hope that such an agreement can be reached.

Mr. Watt: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the need to negotiate from a position of strength? Is he aware that until we extend our own limits to 200 miles he will not be in such a position? Could he also tell the House how many Icelandic boats are fishing for herring within 200 miles of the Shetland Islands?

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Member would like to put the last part of his question to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I am sure my right hon. Friend will reply to it. On the hon. Member's first point, if there is to be an extension of limits I hope the House will accept that it should be done by agreement and not unilaterally. If we were to have international anarchy in these matters, the result for all of us would be far worse than if we try to negotiate an agreement. The Icelandic Government have taken a unilateral decision which, considering Britain's world-wide interests, it would be very foolish of us to accept.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Humberside will welcome the firmness of the statement about our vessels being protected when they start fishing again? Is he aware that it would be a considerable advantage to the Government to publish in the Official Report the various options they have presented to the Icelandic Government in order to show the reasonableness of our position?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that we should like to think that we could achieve an agreement with the Icelandic Government in the short term of, say, three to six months? However, he should bear in mind that the spring period into which we are now entering has always been the most lucrative for fishermen and that for that period we would therefore want more than merely one-quarter of the annual catch?

Mr. Callaghan: I note my hon. Friend's point about the bargaining which might


be undertaken if it were possible to enter into an agreement. In the absence of an agreement we should behave responsibly. I am sure that we shall get a response from the industry when we invite it to discuss with us what should be an appropriate level of catch. We are as conscious of the need to conserve cod stocks in Iceland's interests as Iceland is itself. I have made this clear continually to the Icelandic Ministers with whom I have dealt.
I shall consider my hon. Friend's point about publishing the options, although the main option that we offered has been publicised already. We said to the Icelandic Government that, if our scientists could not agree with theirs on a total allowable catch to conserve stocks, they should choose a figure and we would take 28 per cent. of what they thought was an allowable total. I do not consider that anything could be fairer than that, but they were unable to accept even that proposal.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman take all possible steps to make sure that the British case is fully explained to our NATO partners and allies in the West as some of them do not appear to appreciate what a just case it is? Does he accept that this is an issue of principle which concerns more than the catching of fish and that the main objective should be to ensure that individual countries are not able to disregard international law and take unilateral action?

Mr. Callaghan: I think I have made the position clear on the last part of the question. On the first part, I shall be meeting all the NATO ambassadors in London in a little over half an hour and I intend to put the position to them. I have already explained it to Dr. Luns, the Secretary General. I think that our actions and our failure to respond to what have undoubtedly been provocations have led to a much greater understanding in NATO of our attitude now than perhaps existed a year ago.

Mr. Luard: I welcome the conciliatory position of the Foreign Secretary on this issue. Does he recognise that there is a substantial section of our industry which is much more concerned with reserving fish stocks within a 200-mile zone of our

own to British fishermen than with retaining rights in the waters within 200 miles of Iceland? It may be that we shall wish, like other developed countries, to declare a zone of this kind before it formally becomes international law. As my right hon. Friend indicated a few days ago, this may take a considerable time to achieve. In those circumstances we may wish to make much the same efforts as Iceland is making to introduce conservation measures of our own and to negotiate with other countries to reduce their catches—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was here earlier when I asked for interventions as far as possible to be brief.

Mr. Callaghan: It is necessary that there should be an agreement about the 200-mile limit, and this we shall negotiate in accordance with international law. It is also necessary that there should be a long-term policy for the British fishing fleet in these changed circumstances. It is to this matter that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is bending his attention, and I am sure that Questions put down to him will elucidate very satisfactory answers.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Law of the Sea Conference. I am sure that everyone on the Opposition side supports him when he says that agreement is vital. Is he aware, however, that these conferences can drag on interminably? Will he consider following the example of the United States Senate and bring in a Bill to enable the extension of our own limit to 200 miles on a date such as July 1977, which would give the conference a good chance to come to an agreement before such legislation came into force?

Mr. Callaghan: That is an interesting suggestion, especially since the hon. Member put the date so far forward as the middle of 1977. However, it would have disadvantages in the absence of international agreement. I shall be happy to explain them on another occasion. For the moment, we should work for international agreement. The conference meets in March, but I do not think it will reach agreement then. It might well reach agreement, as I hope, by the end of the summer, and in those circumstances the


hon. Lady's suggestion would not need to be taken up.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Second statement—Mr. Hattersley.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MINISTERS' MEETINGS)

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during February. The monthly forecast for February was deposited yesterday.
At present five meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for February. Foreign Ministers will meet on 9th-10th; Agriculture Ministers on 16th and 17th and possibly 18th and on 23rd-24th; Finance Ministers on 16th, and Research Ministers on 24th February, although the date has yet to be confirmed. An Energy Council may be held before the end of February.
At the Foreign Affairs Council Ministers will consider the work put in hand following the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. Ministers will also consider tropical products in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations; external lending of the European Investment Bank the Commission's formal opinion on Greek accession, and the Community's relations with Spain. Ministers are expected to approve the agreements recently negotiated with the Maghreb countries. Direct elections may also be on the agenda, but there is not expected to be any substantive discussion.
Agriculture Ministers will continue their discussions on CAP prices for 1976–77 and on measures for improving the Community wine market. Finance Ministers will resume discussions of the joint Community borrowing scheme and may also discuss Euratom loans for nuclear power stations.
At the Research Council, Ministers will consider proposals for a five-year Community research programme in the field of controlled thermonuclear fusion and plasma physics including the Joint

European Torus. They will also have before them proposed indirect action programmes on environmental research and development and biology and health protection.
If Energy Ministers meet in February it is expected that they will discuss the proposals which the European Council on 1st and 2nd December 1975 asked the Commission to prepare. These cover mechanisms to protect existing supplies and the development of alternative sources of energy; also the encouragement of energy conservation.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is the Minister of State aware that we were disappointed that in the previous statement the Foreign Secretary could not say more about progress by Britain over the common fisheries policy. Will he say whether, now that ample opportunities appear to be provided for both the Foreign Ministers and the Agriculture Ministers to meet, this question will arise and whether Britain will be taking initiatives in this respect?
The Minister of State mentioned Maghreb. A state of, if not war, considerable armed activity exists in the Maghreb now. Does the Minister feel that the recent agreement negotiated with the Maghreb countries is affected by the dispute which is going on there? Will he enlarge a little on what he means about discussions on a joint Community borrowing scheme? Finally, in view of the statement about direct elections, when do the Government propose to publish their paper on that?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are certain difficulties in dealing in a business statement with substantive matters such as the hon. Member raised with me. I will attempt to do so until Mr. Speaker tells me that I have offended against the rules of order. On the first point, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture last month stressed the importance of making progress on the common fisheries policy. I believe that progress will be made in the Community on these matters during February, although possibly it will not be on the agenda of the Council of Ministers, and it is upon that agenda that I have to report today.
On the Maghreb issue, the proposals we have before us are purely commercial


and are therefore unaffected by the unhappy political situation in that country. As for the borrowing proposals, there is a suggestion from the Governments of Italy and Ireland which do not affect the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to his colleagues that we have had very few statements to this House after ministerial meetings in Brussels? May we have an improvement on that? Secondly, will the Foreign Ministers deal with the question of Angola, which is not unimportant, and do something instead of just sitting around talking?

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the statements are inadequate, I hope that he will continue to make representations. A month ago I was told that debates on the Community were inadequate. The occasion was followed by a debate which ran out before its allocated time because there was insufficient interest in the House.
On Angola I can only tell the hon. Gentleman what I tell him almost every month. If these matters are considered they are considered by the political cooperation machinery of the Community, which is not part of the statement I made today.

Mr. Fernyhough: When the Foreign Ministers discuss economic co-operation, will they discuss the big trade deficit which the United Kingdom has with the rest of the EEC? Will any steps be taken in the reasonably near future to reduce that substantial deficit?

Mr. Hattersley: Those are essentially questions which relate not to Community business but to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom my right hon. Friend should put down that question.

Mr. John Davies: The right hon. Gentleman enumerated in his statement items concerning energy which are to be discussed at the current meeting of the Council, including the development of alternative sources of energy, the protection of supplies, the financing of Euratom projects and the like. In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to his right hon. Friend that it would be appropriate for one of the days

which his right hon. Friend proposes to be allocated for Community matters in this House to be devoted to a major debate on energy?

Mr. Hattersley: That is a matter which should be raised on Thursday, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will do so during questions on the business statement.

Mr. Jay: At which of these gatherings will Ministers discuss the urgent issue of the reform of the common agricultural policy, in which only negligible progress has been made?

Mr. Hattersley: At the many gatherings of the Agriculture Ministers which are to take place this month.

Mr. David Steel: The Minister of State said that direct elections would be on the agenda of the Foreign Ministers Council but that there was not expected to be any substantive discussion. Will the right hon. Gentleman enlarge on that and tell us how the Government's timetable for the publication of their White Paper fits into the Community discussions?

Mr. Hattersley: The substantive issue of direct elections will not be discussed this month because the working party set up by the Council will not have reported by the time the Foreign Ministers meet. As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the Government are already conducting discussions with the parties about these matters. It is intended that the White Paper will be published in such a way and at such a time as to allow consideration well in advance of the debate in the House.

Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend next meets his fellow Ministers in Europe will he discuss the possibility of setting up a Welsh television channel, in view of the interruptions we have had this afternoon—

Mr. Speaker: Order. By long tradition we ignore what happens in other places. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) for the interruptions during his question. I thought we had enough Welsh yesterday.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend discuss the possibility of a Welsh television channel—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that question comes strictly within the terms of the statement. So far, Wales is included in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Biffen: Does the Secretary of State for Energy intend to have a bilateral meeting with Dr. Mario Pedini, the Italian Minister for Scientific Research, before the meeting at which the Joint European Torus project is to be further discussed? Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations that the House would appreciate an early statement following that meeting in view of the widespread belief in this country that the scientific evidence points overwhelmingly to the project being located at Culham?

Mr. Hattersley: I am anxious, as I have been for two years, to establish that this is not an occasion for hon. and right hon. Members to make points unrelated to European business, no matter how valid or invalid they may be. The hon. Gentleman must put that question down to someone else.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that fishery negotiations were complicated by the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference. How can that be, when our inshore fishermen were aware of the fisheries policy on entry into the Common Market and will, when 1982 comes, seek to prevent Common Market vessels having the same rights as our vessels?

Mr. Hattersley: As my statement did not say, and it is not the case, that the common fisheries policy will be discussed by the Council of Ministers, that question does not arise.

Mr. Torney: In view of the inadequacies for Britain of the common agricultural policy, will the Minister ensure that when Community agricultural discussions take place steps are taken fundamentally to change, or even to abolish, the CAP?

Mr. Hattersley: I have explained to the House on several occasions when, during the coming months, my right hon. Friend will discuss the CAP and when he will make clear our attitude to that policy. I hope and believe that the House will have an opportunity to comment on the substance of those discussions during that time. It is not for me to do so today.

Mr. Macmillan: Will the Minister assure the House that in the course of the general discussion of the Foreign Ministers the question of Helsinki will be raised, if necessary by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary? Will he also confirm that the failure of the Soviet Government to comply with the spirit, and indeed the letter, of the agreement will be considered at European level and that potential action will be considered at European level? Will the right hon. Gentleman also assure the House that the consequences of continued Soviet penetration into Africa and elsewhere will be considered by the Economic Ministers and the Foreign Ministers together because of the possible threat to our supply of raw materials?

Mr. Hattersley: I have told the House once today, and I am happy to repeat, that it is not the convention to record the discussions held during political cooperation machinery, but the right hon. Gentleman has taken this opportunity to make his point, irrelevant though it may be to my statement.

PUBLIC GALLERY (ADMISSION)

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After what happened earlier, can you assure the House that a record is kept of how tickets to the Gallery are issued, which hon. Members issue them and how many are issued to people in the public queue?

Mr. Speaker: I shall have inquiries made and let the hon. Gentleman know.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Post Office (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]

EDUCATION BILL (DEBATE)

Mr. Speaker: Before moving on to the Ten-Minute Rule Bill, I must tell the House that more than 30 Back Benchers wish to take part in the debate on education. I hope when we come to that debate that hon. Members will exercise self-discipline.

POST OFFICE (AMENDMENT)

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Post Office Act 1969.
The Post Office has a monopoly, protected by law, for the collection and delivery of all letters in the United Kingdom. That monopoly does not extend to parcels or newspapers. They can be, and are, collected by other agencies, individuals and charities.
The Bill which I seek to introduce would repeal Sections 3 and 4 of the Post Office Act 1953 and Section 23 of the Post Office Act 1959. Those sections give to the Corporation its exclusive monopoly and provide the penalty of a fine of £5 for every letter delivered in violation of the monopoly.
The Second Report of the Select Commitee on Nationalised Industries, which was published yesterday, records that during the past 10 years
the tariff for first-class letters had quadrupled, the quality of the service had deteriorated and the traffic had declined.
The Report continues:
Against a background of increasing deficit, declining letter traffic, inflation, labour intensive operations and growing commitments, it is clear that urgent and radical action is required in respect of Post Office activities in general, and of the letter post in particular.
I do not want to be guilty of selective quotation, and honesty compels me to admit that the Select Committee also recommended that the Post Office's monopoly of letter post services should continue to be protected.

Mr. Russell Kerr: A unanimous recommendation.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Gow: It is precisely that recommendation that I wish to challenge. We are deeply suspicious of monopolies in general and of State monopolies in particular.
It is true that there is growing public dissatisfaction with both the cost and the reliability of the letter post service. There were two increases in postal charges in 1975, one in April and one in October. The Post Office estimates that during the

current year, as a direct result of those two increases, there will be a loss of business to the extent of 834 million fewer letters. Despite official denials to the contrary, it is likely that the cost of first-class mail will increase again within the next few months from 8½p to 10½p. If that further increase should take place, the cost of the first-class post in England will be higher than in any other country in Western Europe with the sole exception of Norway.
It is the spiralling cost of the letter post which has given added impetus to the growing demand to end this State monopoly. Such a monopoly is unresponsive to the needs of the public whom it is supposed to serve. That is why my hon. Friend believes that the fresh breezes of free enterprise and free competition should be allowed to blow through the Post Office, with advantage both to the Corporation and to the public.
Business mail represents 80 per cent. of the letters that are posted. More and more businesses are seeking ways of getting round this statutory monopoly. Last June the Bristol Law Society—we know how much the Law Society commends itself to the Labour Party—started a mail collection and distribution service by installing 100 post office-style boxes in the Commercial Rooms in Bristol. Members of the scheme included insurance companies, building societies, the Avon County Council and employment agencies. The service is confined to dealing with mail sent between those organisations within the city. Members of the scheme pay £25 initially to purchase a box and an annual subscription of £7 thereafter. A member organisation sends someone to the Commercial Rooms to post mail for each of the other members and to collect the mail for his own firm. Members of the scheme estimate that their savings in postal charges are between £1 and £2 a week. The Post Office has followed the lead which has been given by free enterprise by adopting a similar private scheme of its own.
In the United States there is no monopoly for second, third and fourth-class mail. Even the remaining first-class mail monopoly in the United States is under increasing attack. Only last month the President's Council on Wage and Price Stability recommended that the monopoly should be brought to an end.
The Post Office monopoly is not only damaging to our commercial life but deals hammer-blows to charities. Last October the vicar of St. Peter's Church, Elworth, Cheshire, put the following notice in his church magazine:
Many people send local Christmas cards … I suggest a system by which members of the church might offer a delivery service in the Sandbach area. Cards could be left at the back of the church in a box to be delivered in the next week.
In the next edition of the church magazine the vicar wrote:
Towards the end of last week I had a visit from the Sandbach Postmaster"—
some latter-day Gauleiter.
The purpose of his visit was to inform me that our proposed St. Peter's post scheme"—
a scheme that I am sure is dear to you, Mr. Speaker—
which had some publicity recently, would be infringing the Post Office monopoly, and would therefore be breaking the law.
A Mrs. Pinder-White, who lives in Kent and who is a champion of the lonely senior citizen, planned to organise a Christmas card delivery service for old-age pensioners in Broadstairs. She received a letter from the Minister of State, Department of Industry informing her that the Post Office could not allow her scheme to go ahead. It is surprising that the Minister, who is normally so courteous and genial in the House, saw fit to write:
I know I must sound like Scrooge and it would be much easier for the Post Office and myself to say 'yes'. But the general financial health and effectiveness of the Post Office must be my first concern.
That is the trouble. The Minister and the Government are much more concerned with the Post Office than with the public whom they are supposed to serve.
The Bill is in no way critical of postmen. They are loyal, popular and hardworking members of our community. The Bill is critical of an inefficient, costly, unresponsive and loss-making State monopoly. The Government have refused to allow the Post Office Review Committee to include in its terms of reference whether the statutory monopoly should be broken. The Bill seeks to put that right.
Competition and the disciplines of the market economy, feared and detested by

bureaucrats and monopolies of every kind, are the truest friends and the surest protectors of the people. The Bill asserts the supremacy of the public interest over an increasingly discredited and inadequate bureaucracy.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: I declare my interest as assistant secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union, but I speak for the interests of all those who have a national postal service at heart.
Yesterday the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries reported after receiving evidence from a wide variety of sources, including the Post Office Users National Council, that the monopoly should in no way be infringed. I repeat that the Post Office Users National Council gave evidence to that effect. The reason why it did so was quite obvious. It reprsents all users of the postal service. It is not solely representative of commercial companies in the City of London or Bristol.
It is true that substantial payments have been made to the Post Office by the taxpayer over the last two or three years, due to the policy of the last Tory Administration in deciding that postal charges should be pegged below an economic level.
Were the proposals contained in the Bill to become law—which they will not—an immediate consequence would be the creaming-off to private companies of the profitable business of the postal service, leaving the unprofitable business to the State. Whereas some private commercial concerns would get their service perhaps marginally cheaper, the unprofitable, uneconomic provision of postal services to the ordinary citizen—especially to those who live in the country—would be much more costly. The level of service could also be subject to cuts.
The issue, therefore, is very clear. It is whether harm is to be done to the ordinary user of the postal service because of the greed of the business community. It is my belief that we have to maintain a national postal monopoly in the interests of the small private user. That is not only the view of the Post Office and the Post Office unions, who want to give the best service possible, but


is also the view of the Post Office Users National Council. It is a view with which I concur.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring

in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 166.

Division No. 50.]
AYES
[4.10 p.m


A[...]tken, Jonathan
Grieve, Percy
Nott, John


Arnold, Tom
Grist, Ian
Onslow, Cranley


Banks, Robert
Hall, Sir John
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bell, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, W.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pattle, Geoffrey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hannam, John
Penhaligon, David


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bottomley, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Rathbone, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Henderson, Douglas
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brittan, Leon
Hooson, Emlyn
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hordern, Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brotherton, Michael
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Budgen, Nick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Burden, F. A.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Channon, Paul
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lament, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cope, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Silvester, Fred


Cordle, John H.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sims, Roger


Corrie, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A. P.
Lawson, Nigel
Skeet, T. H. H.


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dean,Paul (N Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Drayson, Burnaby
Luce, Richard
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Elliott, Sir William
Maxwell-Hys[...]op, Robin
Tebbit, Norman


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mayhew, Patrick
Thompson, George


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mills, Peter
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fell, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Moate Roger
Watt, Hamish


Fookes, Miss Janet
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Montgomery, Fergus
Welsh, Andrew


Freud, Clement
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wigley, Dafydd


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morgan, Geraint
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhart, Philip
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Younger, Hon George


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mudd, David



Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neubert, Michael
Mr. Nicholas Ridley and


Gray, Hamish
Newton, Tony
Mr. Ian Gow.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Carson, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Armstrong, Ernest
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Deakins, Eric


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cartwright, John
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Atkinson, Norman
Clemitson, Ivor
Dempsey, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dormand, J. D.


Bishop, E. S.
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Dunlop, John


Booth, Albert
Conlan, Bernard
Dunn, James A.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Corbett, Robin
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Buchanan, Richard
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
English, Michael


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Crawshaw, Richard
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cryer, Bob
Faulds, Andrew


Canavan, Dennis
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.


Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Flannery, Martin


Carmichael, Nell
Davidson, Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)




Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacCormick, Iain
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Forrester, John
McEIhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stallard, A. W.


George, Bruce
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David


Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strang, Gavin


Gould, Bryan
McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Graham, Ted
Madden, Max
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Grocott, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth
Tierney, Sydney


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Harper, Joseph
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomlinson, John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Torney, Tom


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Urwin, T. W.


Huckfield, Les
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Newens, Stanley
Ward, Michael


Janner, Greville
Noble, Mike
Watkins, David


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael
Watkinson, John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orbach, Maurice
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ovenden, John
Whitlock, William


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Park, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kelley, Richard
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Kerr, Russell
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lamborn, Harry
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lamond, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodall, Alec


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rooker, J. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lipton, Marcus
Sedgemore, Brian
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)



Loyden, Eddie
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius
Mr. John Golding and


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Roger Stott.


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Small, William

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I deem it a privilege, Mr. Speaker, to open the first debate under your chairmanship, and it is a very happy coincidence that today we are debating education, the field of activity which you left some years ago to come to this House. But, as hon. Members know, you continued to take a great interest in education matters, and it is well known that you were held in great esteem in the education world. I am sure that it is the wish of everyone in education that I express congratulations and good wishes to you. It is perhaps the only time that I can claim to speak on behalf of the whole education world with certain unanimity.
This Bill is intended, first and foremost, to give effect to the Government's policy on comprehensive education. There are other clauses which deal with the expenses paid to members of independent schools tribunals, student awards and school milk, but I have no doubt that most hon. Members will be most interested in that part of the Bill dealing with comprehensive education and, therefore, while I shall refer to the other clauses later, for the most part I shall concentrate on this major question.
The Education Act 1944 laid the foundation of universal secondary education for all. At that time, it was widely recognised that the provision of elementary education for the masses and secondary education for the few was both socially unjust and a waste of the nation's talents. Accordingly, the Act provided that all-age schools should be reorganised. Primary and secondary education was to be provided in separate schools. This was Government policy, and local authorities and the voluntary bodies who wished to be part of the maintained system were required by Law to conform to it.
The Act also said that all pupils should be educated according to their ages, abilities and aptitudes. It was widely held at the time that this end could he secured by the provision of three types of school—grammar, modern and technical—which between them would meet the needs of three identifiable groups of pupils. Such a system seemed to open new opportunities to pupils of all backgrounds and abilities, and the 1945 Labour Government supported and encouraged it.
During the 1950s, educational opinion began to swing away from the idea that pupils could be neatly categorised at 11-plus. Evidence was gathered which showed that a very significant proportion of pupils were wrongly placed in the secondary selection procedure—wrongly, that is, in terms of their potential. It came to be asked whether pupils' potential could ever be assessed so precisely as to justify their being placed on a narrowly defined educational track. It came to be asked also whether there were indeed two or three identifiable types of pupil, or whether each pupil was an individual with his own particular combination of needs and potentialities which could be met only in a school providing for the whole range of pupils and their interests at a variety of levels.
Finally, it came to be asked whether it was desirable to segregate a small proportion of pupils for what was inevitably—however wrongly—seen as privileged treatment. So the ideal of the comprehensive school came into being. With the raising of the school leaving age to 15 and later to 16, selection at 11 was not only unfair and unjust but largely irrelevant. I think that Opposition Members will accept many of the arguments against selection at 11-plus, not least because, for every boy or girl who passed, four or five failed, and failure, at the tender age of 11, determined future career possibilities and in most cases ruled out the opportunity of further or higher education. The only effective means of abolishing selection is to have a system of non-selective or comprehensive secondary schools.
On taking office in 1964, our first step towards this goal was the issue of Circular 10/65. This circular not only gave the first major impetus to our policy but reflected a growing tide of public and


educational opinion against a system of selection, the very arbitrary nature of which caused grave disquiet in the minds of all thinking people. The circular requested local education authorities to submit plans for reorganising all secondary schools on comprehensive lines, and between 1965 and 1970 almost 1,000 new comprehensive schools were established.
Despite the issue of Circular 10/70 by the incoming Conservative Government, yet another 1,000 comprehensive schools were established between 1970 and 1974. Indeed, by January 1975, 68 per cent. of secondary pupils in England and Wales were in comprehensive schools and only one local education authority—Kingstonon-Thames—had none at all at that stage. Such rapid progress hardly suggests, as the Opposition often contend, that a substantial number of democratically elected authorities were opposed to our declared policy.
When we returned to office in 1974 we made a formal statement in Circular 4/74 of our intention to develop a fully comprehensive system of secondary education and to end selection. The circular invited all local education authorities to submit to the Department of Education and Science by the end of 1974 details of the successive measures to be taken to complete secondary reoragnisation. Voluntary schools were urged to co-operate with local education authorities. The response of local education authorities to the circular has, in the main, been good. Similarly, the vast majority of voluntary schools have expressed themselves willing in principle to reorganise along comprehensive lines.
Nevertheless, there are seven local education authorities which have declared their intention in principle of retaining some measure of selection. There are also, it would seem, a small number of voluntary schools—nearly all of which are non-denominational—likely to be an impediment to complete reorganisation. As I said in the House on 24th November, I should have preferred to deal with this by agreement rather than by legislation. But we face an impasse. We can progress no further by discussion and agreement towards our declared policy of comprehensive secondary education for all. I have, therefore, introduced the Bill which will, I hope, lead to a determined

effort by all local education authorities in England and Wales to bring their reorganisation to a speedy and as efficient a conclusion as possible. I am confident that once the Bill has become law all local education authorities, including the seven which have said hitherto that they intend to retain a measure of selection, will be willing to implement it.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the situation that has arisen in Essex, particularly in the light of the statement made last Friday? Will he make it clear that there is no question of continuing selection in that county?

Mr. Mulley: As I understand the position in Colchester, there was a scheme that was turned down by my predecessor. Revised proposals for the Colchester area to retain two grammar schools were submitted. We have approved these proposals because they are a step in the right direction and will in no way prejudge the question of the future of the grammar schools.
It is to deal with that kind of problem that we are introducing the Bill, and it will in the meantime be of great benefit to the children who will be going to these schools in the next year or two while the new reorganisation is being undertaken when the Bill becomes law. It is by no means ideal, but in the present situation it is the best that can be achieved and it will be beneficial to the children concerned.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for informing the House that these selective schools are to be retained in Colchester. Can he give the same undertaking with regard to two selective schools at Chelmsford and the selective schools at Southend? Are the same principles to be applied to them?

Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. Gentleman, with his capacity for misunderstanding, has got the Colchester position wrong. The two grammar schools in Colchester are not coming within the comprehensive system because the county's proposals did not include them. At the moment I have no power such as that which I am seeking in the Bill to send the matter back to the county and to ask it to introduce a scheme that will


bring the grammar schools into consideration. The hon. Gentleman realises that this is, in a sense, an illustration of the kind of problem that has led us to introduce the Bill.
However, the Bill will not and cannot ensure that all schools will be comprehensive within the next two or three years. We recognise that there are local education authorities and voluntary schools which would like to reorganise but face resource problems. For this reason, I have allocated £25 million specifically for assisting comprehensive reorganisation, and authorities in England and Wales were invited to submit specific projects for consideration against that sum.
I should make it clear that this allocation is additional to the provision of building allocations under the usual headings. Even so, we recognise that some local education authorities and voluntary schools will still be unable to reorganise immediately because of resource problems.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman used the expression "against the sum of £25 million put aside for this purpose". Is that a sum of money from the Government? I ask that because yesterday the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State told me that
capital authorisations are not grants to local authorities but sums within which loan sanction will be allowed."—[Official Report, 2nd February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 483.]

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend's answer was perfectly correct. I used the word "allocation" carefully. This follows the same procedure as is used for any building allocation to local authorities. It permits them to have loan sanction. The repayment of the loan and the charges in connection therewith are, like other relevant expenditure, treated as part of the rate support grant. There is no difference in the treatment of this sum of £25 million and of moneys for normal school building. It is on exactly the same basis.
About 70 per cent. of our children are now being educated in comprehensive schools. As reorganisation extends, it reaches into more difficult areas, and in some of those further progress at a time of declining school population is difficult to achieve even when everyone—teachers,

parents and local authorities—are all anxious to introduce comprehensive schools.

Mr. Paul Channon: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the situation where teachers and parents are anxious to press ahead with comprehensive reorganisation. What is his policy about those areas where there is no doubt that the majority of parents are against comprehensive reorganisation? Is he aware that in my constituency a recent poll of all parents of children of school age in the town showed that 75 per cent. of them wanted to retain some grammar schools in the town?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman made some reference to this on a previous occasion, but I do not feel that we can legislate or determine our national policy on the basis of isolated examples.

Mr. Channon: I had always understood that education was a matter for local people to decide in the light of local interest. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government intend to introduce the Bill to flout the democratically-expressed wishes of the parents involved?

Mr. Mulley: I am taking the same view on national education policy as the hon. Gentleman took when he was discharging housing finance responsibilities when again the views of democratically-elected people were expressed.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order.

Mr. Mulley: The opinions of parents on particular schemes are relevant, and if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself a little I shall explain as I go through the Bill in detail how the procedures will be akin to Section 13 procedures for change of status, with the opportunity for everyone concerned to express his view.

Mr. Channon: That has been done.

Mr. Mulley: Clause I will require all local education authorities to have regard to the comprehensive principle, that is, that all secondary education should be provided in schools to which pupils are admitted without reference to ability or


aptitude. Excluded from that principle are schools for the physically and mentally handicapped. The Warnock Committee is at present considering the special needs of this goup. Without this specific exemption, of course it would not be possible to have special schools for handicapped children at all.

Mr. John Hannam: Is the Minister aware that this part of the Bill affecting disabled people is causing great concern to organisations for the disabled, since he seems to be enshrining now in legislation the selection of disabled children for special schools whereas all the objectives in the past have been to integrate them in normal schools?

Mr. Mulley: I think that there has been a certain misunderstanding here. There are several experiments going ahead. In my own constituency, for example, experiments are being conducted on the integration of handicapped children in ordinary schools. One wants to encourage that, but we should await the recommendations of the Warnock Committee. However, unless we had this specific general exemption, there would be no possibility anywhere for a special school. It does not mean that all special schools must continue, but there may be some categories of disabled children for whom, because of their special disabilities, it is desirable that they have facilities not available for them in other institutions.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) rose—

Mr. Mulley: I must get on. There are many matters with which I should like to deal, but I suspect that the House will be giving attention to them in the future.
I have also excluded from this principle schools which select by reference to ability in music or dancing. Ability in these fields can be diagnosed early, and its encouragement in special institutions is unlikely to be educationally or socially divisive.
Clause 2 will give me power to require a local education authority to submit proposals within a specified time, giving effect to the comprehensive principle. It would allow me to call for proposals if I felt that further progress was needed in

either all or part of a local education authority's area.
This clause will also require local education authorities to consult the governors of all voluntary schools affected by their proposals. I hope that they would reach an agreement about the role of the voluntary schools in the reorganisation proposals, but if not, local education authorities will be required to forward to me, with their own proposals, any alternative proposals produced by the voluntary schools.
Clause 2 will also enable me to call for proposals from the governors of a voluntary school, within a specified time, if they have not submitted satisfactory proposals themselves or have declined to do so. If I consider that proposals submitted by local education authorities or governors are unsatisfactory, I am able to call for further proposals to remedy deficiencies. Proposals would have to be submitted to me in such form as I directed, and would have to indicate the proposed timing of implementation.
To sum up, Clause 2 will give me power, if necessary, to call for proposals from local education authorities and voluntary schools, and to indicate the unsatisfactory aspects of rejected proposals. I emphasise, however, that it will not empower me to substitute detailed alternatives to those rejected proposals. The power to design individual solutions for areas remains firmly in the hands of the local education authorities and voluntary schools.
I do not propose to set a date by which comprehensive reorganisation throughout the country will have to be completed, and I think that hon. Members will agree that it is neither practical nor desirable to do so. Any such date would have to take account of local education authorities with the greatest technical and resource problems and would thus be much later than a reasonable date for many other local education authorities. Yet many authorities might feel that, provided they kept to this date, they were meeting the requirement, and the consequence could be delay rather than an acceleration in the rate of reorganisation.
But, of course, as I have said already, the timing of implementation will be an important part of the proposals I shall ask to be submitted, and I shall need to


be convinced that the dates proposed are on the basis of proceeding with reasonable speed and due diligence. Equally, I should stress that we shall expect the plans to make good educational sense. If they do not, or if it seems to me the plans submitted represent significantly slower progress than is feasible, I shall not hesitate to point these matters out to the proposers when rejecting them and requiring a fresh submission.

Sir John Eden: On what basis would the Minister make a judgment on whether proposals made educational sense?

Mr. Mulley: The first question to which I should address myself is whether they would fall within the scope of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 3(1) will empower me to treat reorganisation proposals likely to be in effect within five years as I would those submitted under Section 13 of the 1944 Act. The normal Section 13 procedures will then be employed. The proposers would be under a duty to give public notice of their proposals, and the usual two-month period for objections would follow. I should have power, after considering the proposals and any objections to them, to approve or reject them.
Clause 3(2) is a special provision to safeguard the position of the voluntary aided schools. The governors of such schools have to find 15 per cent. of the cost of any new buildings, the other 85 per cent. being found by my Department. It would clearly be wrong of me to approve proposals involving new building when the governors could genuinely not afford to implement them. The Churches asked for a reassurance that I should not force aided schools to spend money they had not got in order to reorganise. That assurance I gladly give, and here it is in the Bill. Of course, I should expect voluntary schools to submit realistic proposals which they could afford, and if their proposals were not realistic in financial terms I should reject them and require fresh ones.
Clause 3(3) would mean that where proposals, involving new buildings and submitted under Clause 2, are approved, there would be a duty to produce building plans. Section 13 as it stands assumes

that if the plans are approved they must then be carried out. For ordinary Section 13 proposals of this type, such as the establishment of a new primary school, there will still be no duty to submit building plans.
Clause 4 makes amendments to Section 13 which will apply both for ordinary proposals and for those submitted under Clause 2. There will now be a duty to implement all proposals approved under Section 13 which do not involve subsequent production of building plans and specifications.
Clauses 3 and 4 taken together will therefore place a duty on local education authorities and governors of voluntary schools to submit reorganisation proposals at my request under Clause 2 in the form of Section 13 proposals. They will be under a duty either to carry out those proposals which are approved or to submit the necessary building plans for implementation and then to carry out these if the plans are approved. There would be no point in taking powers to require local authorities and governors to produce plans and to treat those plans as Section 13 proposals if, at the end, those who had produced the plans could frustrate Government policy by not implementing them.
I now turn to Clause 5. Local authorities have certain powers and duties with respect to non-maintained schools. For instance, they may give assistance to such schools under Section 9(1) of the 1944 Act, they may take up places at such schools under Section 6(1) of the 1953 Act, and they may also pay on a means test the whole or part of fees and expenses of individual pupils attending non-maintained schools, under the 1945 Regulations made under Section 81 of the 1944 Act. These powers were intended to be exercised with the approval of the Minister, as he then was. But as a result of a relaxation of controls in the late 1950s, I have now no power to withhold approval for arrangements of the second and third kinds.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I am very concerned about this, because it is retrospective legislation. These powers go right back over the years, possibly to 1944. Will any compensation be payable to any school which suffers loss?

Mr. Mulley: I have not yet completed explaining Clause 5. I am taking power to revoke approvals already given, otherwise I would not have any power. The 1944 Act has been commended so warmly to me by Conservative Members that I am trying to put the position back to what it was in 1944. That is exactly what I am doing, in this matter at any rate—

Mr. Skeet: It is retrospective.

Mr. Mulley: It will not be retrospective in the sense that it will take away fees paid for children who have already been to school, but it will mean, in relation to future expenditure, that arrangements which have been going on will have to be justified. That seems a reasonable situation.

Mr. Simon Mahon: This is a very serious point. The Secretary of State has said that he would rather do things by agreement than by legislation. In my constituency, ordinary dock labourers as well as members of the professions now have to go to Dubai or somewhere else to work. The maintenance of children according to the religious teaching of their parents is very important. If my right hon. Friend wishes this matter to be done by agreement rather than by legislation, will he continue to have discussions with the voluntary bodies along these lines as he has in the past, with a view to getting agreement?

Mr. Mulley: It is a mistake to give way before I have explained a point. I have a note to say exactly that—that arrangements involving boarding or denominational needs will certainly be approved. Also, we shall be willing to consider any other exceptional case on its merits.
Clause 5 has been included in the Bill to give specific powers to the Secretary of State to restore the position to what it was in 1944. I will have power to revoke any previous approval for existing arrangements and authorities would need to seek approval for any arrangements under Section 9 of the 1944 Act or Section 6 of the 1953 Act. New Regulations under Section 81 would be made, and new arrangements governing general assistance to individual pupils would need my approval; I should have power to revoke existing arrangements. Local education authorities would have a duty

to discontinue any arrangements for which approval is revoked.
Where an authority can satisfy me that it cannot provide education of a type suitable for the age, ability and aptitude of some pupils without taking up places in the non-maintained system, I shall, of course, give approval for such arrangements, but for a limited period. I would envisage this occurring where there is a short-term lack of maintained school provision or of special needs such as boarding or denominational provision. I would also of course consider any other exceptional case on its merits. This clause will prevent a local authority from seeking to circumvent Clause 1 and using the take-up of independent places as a means to avoid establishing a fully comprehensive system of secondary education.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the Secretary of State cut off pupils in the mid-flight of their careers? Will he regard every one of those cases as exceptional?

Mr. Mulley: I might have known better than to give way to the hon. Lady. She has made no contribution. She knows that all this does is ask local authorities to seek approval. It does not in any sense prejudge the answer to those requests. Second, as she knows, in the direct grant schools and in the case of a "cease to maintain" order for a school, we have provided for the continued education of those already at the school. It is wrong for the hon. Lady to go around making that sort of allegation.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I simply asked for an assurance.

Mr. Mulley: I do not normally give assurances about whether I will approve arrangements until I know what the arrangements are. I think that that is a reasonable course to take.
Before turning to the other clauses of the Bill I should like to make a few general comments particularly about voluntary schools. Hon. Members will recall that before the Bill was presented I sent a consultative document to both the local authority associations and to those who have national responsibility for voluntary aided schools. Subsequently my colleagues and I met representatives of these organisations. I should like now to pay a tribute to the reasonableness and understanding that they showed during


the discussions and also to the constructive and useful comments they made on the proposals as originally drafted. Those with responsibility for voluntary aided schools were no less frank about what they felt would be acceptable than were the local authority associations.
There was, of course, no coincidence of views among all the parties themselves and not all of them agreed with what had been proposed. While I listened with great care to all they had to say, I was particularly impressed by the views put forward about the attitude to be adopted in the Bill to the voluntary schools. I have no wish to undermine in any way the concordat that was reached with the voluntary bodies, particularly the Churches, and settled in the 1944 Act. My experience of the attitude of those responsible for the provision of denominational schools is such that, I am convinced, any attempt to coerce them along the road to reorganisation is completely unnecessary.
Of the 800 or so voluntary aided denominational and non-denominational schools, all but a handful are willing to co-operate. However, a few are either reluctant or deliberately obstructive. Most of these are grammar schools of ancient foundation many of which hold special positions in the communities they serve. They often enjoy considerable prestige which in no small part flows from the facilities which they provide and which have largely been found from public funds and which enable them to attract good staff who are paid from public funds. They are schools whose facilities make a substantial contribution—facilities for which the people have paid and without which the community would be educationally poorer. Most of them are charitable bodies, founded specifically for the education of the poor in the community.
Because of these arguments I was urged to make it legally possible for local education authorities to submit Section 13 proposals for these schools where the governors were unable or unwilling to do so. Under existing legislation local education authorities may make proposals only to cease to maintain such schools—to eliminate them from the maintained sector. I was urged to allow local authorities to make other proposals—that is, to change the character of the schools by

requiring them to admit pupils without reference to academic ability, or to admit girls as well as boys, or to change the age range for which they catered, or to enlarge the number of pupils they provided for.
This I have resisted, partly because any such changes in the law could, potentially at least, be construed as a threat to the independence of the Church schools but mainly because I wish to uphold the dual system and to continue to encourage the Churches and other voluntary bodies to play a full part in our educational system and to bring to it the expertise, the enthusiasm and the resources they have accumulated and developed over the years. What is provided in this Bill was discussed with representatives of the voluntary schools, including the Churches, and was pursued in correspondence with those who wished to have further clarification.
I believe that the solution which is set out in the Bill and which provides for the Secretary of State to require the governors of such schools to produce proposals is not unacceptable to the Churches. I know how highly they value their status as a voluntary and independent partner, along with local education authorities, within the maintained system. I am happy to preserve the balance of this historic partnership which is fundamental to our whole education system. Indeed, I believe the continuation of the religious settlement achieved in 1944 is an essential prerequisite to the successful establishment of a comprehensive system.
I now turn to the other provisions of the Bill. Independent schools tribunals consist of a legally qualified chairman and two other members. They are constituted ad hoc to determine complaints made by the Secretary of State about an independent school, its proprietors or teachers, or to hear appeals over previous decisions. During the past five years, 13 tribunals have been convened.
Section 75 of the 1944 Act states that remuneration and allowances paid to members of these tribunals should be decided by rules. As these fees and expenses have to be increased regularly it means that new rules also have to be laid before the House at regular intervals. Clause 6 will enable the rates and fees to be dealt with administratively as for


all the other 70 tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor has responsibility. This change will bring these tribunals into line with the provisions made for all other tribunals in England and Wales.
Under the Education Act 1975, the scope of mandatory awards was extended to cover students on full-time courses leading to the Higher National Diploma. These diploma courses will eventually be replaced by courses for the higher awards of the technician or business education councils and will start effectively in 1977–78. Clause 7 has been introduced to amend further the Education Act 1962 and enables students on these courses to receive mandatory awards.
Clause 8 is designed to revoke the present requirement of the Education (Milk) Act 1971 that the charge made to pupils for milk must cover the full economic cost of providing it. As I have said before, I find this quite indefensible, since it singles out milk as the only food or beverage about which the local education authorities have no discretion as to the price they charge for supplying it and in fact requires that the authorities can offer milk for sale in their schools only at a charge significantly higher than the retail price of the milk delivered to one's door. These arrangements were criticised by both the Committee on Catering Arrangements in Schools and the Nutrition Working Party.
The first step therefore is to repeal these provisions. The second step will be to make new regulations after consultations with the local authorities as to the extent and nature of the discretion they wish restored to them. In present circumstances it is not intended to make mandatory the restoration of free milk to the children who lost it in 1971 and it is unlikely, I think, that the local education authorities will wish to supply milk free, except perhaps in cases of hardship.
The present Milk and Meals Regulations would remain in force until replaced by new ones.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are grateful to learn that the Government do not intend to change the position, which was established by the 1971 Act, concerning children over the age of seven. However, may not this clause be interpreted as giving power to local education

authorities, which they do not possess at present, to charge for milk up to the age of seven years?

Mr. Mulley: I give the hon. Gentleman up as a bad job because the purpose of the Bill is precisely to repeal the outrageous provisions of the 1971 Act with which the hon. Gentleman was associated.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Mulley: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's comments in my own way, if he does not mind. The 1971 Act required a school to charge schoolchildren more for a pint of milk than I pay the milkman when he delivers it to my door. That is the present situation which we shall change. As a normal arrangement we shall consult the local authorities but I dare not consult them until I have the power to change the regulations otherwise the hon. Gentleman will talk about legislation by conference or by circulars. When the Bill is passed we shall talk to the local authorities and on that basis, as I have just said, we shall make new regulations. The present Milk and Meals Regulations will remain in force until they are replaced by new ones. The Bill does not change the law in any respect except that it permits us to make regulations on a different basis because at present we are restricted by the 1971 Act which is now to be repealed.
The Bill has no special commencement provisions. It would become effective in its various measures upon receiving the Royal Assent.
Hon. Members will have noted that there are no specific provisions for enforcement in the Bill itself since by virtue of Clause 10 (3):
This Act shall be construed as one with the Education Act 1944".
This has the effect that the enforcement provisions of the 1944 Act and in particular, for example, Section 99 of that Act, can be invoked to provide legal sanctions by mandamus to enforce directions given under the powers to be conferred by this Bill. The section applies not only to local education authorities but to the managers and governors of county and voluntary schools.
I have sought to summarise the provisions of the Bill and to set before the


House the cogent reasons why we attach importance to the enactment in particular of the powers to make general and more rapid progress towards the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines, thus ending the heart-aches and injustices which flow from the 11-plus and similar selection procedures.
We believe this to be a fundamental feature of any educational system designed to provide reasonable educational opportunities for all children whilst at the same time ensuring the maximum utilisation of the talents of our young people for the benefit of both our society and our economy in future years.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: So many congratulations have been rained upon Mr. Speaker that perhaps it has been overlooked that you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are worthy of congratulation on your election to your present position. I offer these congratulations in both justice and in anticipation of favours to come. I should like also to join the Secretary of State in this one moment of co-operation and agreement in congratulating Mr. Speaker on his election and saying that, like the Secretary of State, I feel that it is a privilege to be partaking in the first debate over which he is presiding. I can wish him no greater success than that he should be a worthy successor to his great predecessor, Thomas More, who had the unique twin distinctions of being beheaded and canonised, in one of which precedents I hope that Mr. Speaker will follow him.
Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about this badly drafted, negative and destructive Bill is that it has been introduced in to the House of Commons at this particular time. The education service is facing unprecedented problems. We are facing drastic cutbacks in the rate of financial growth. We are seeing the demolition of the nursery programme which was so assiduously and farsightedly planned by my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition. We are seeing closures in colleges of education, cutbacks in the number of teachers and rising teacher unemployment. We have seen the demoralising of the universities and other institutions of higher learning and the collapse of confidence among millions of parents over standards

of learning and discipline in our schools. This is an extraordinary time to put forward a partisan, doctrinaire, and unwanted measure.
The Secretary of State, at the North of England conference on 9th January, repeated words which I had used in my first speech as Opposition spokesman 18 months ago. He reaffirmed for the first time the importance of the three Rs and of learning these basic skills as a priority in education. I thought that he had suffered a Pauline or at least a Rhodine conversion. But, less than a month later, we find him at the Dispatch Box giving as his first priority in educational matters the introduction of a Bill which embodies all the worst dogmatism of Socialist attitudes to education.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way for one second?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: For two seconds to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was at that conference which was addressed by the Secretary of State and that a prominent Labour member of the university said that Labour had totally lost confidence in the Government and asked whether they hated universities?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's testimony. I realise that the conference was even more distinguished than I thought.
This Bill is an insult to the intelligence of all parents and is contemptuous of the anxieties that they feel. Parents are concerned not with how schools are organised but with how their children are taught within those schools. They want something simple and basic: a disciplined and ordered learning environment in which their children can learn to read, to write, to spell, to add up, to express themselves in good clear English, and to confirm the moral values and attitudes which they have learned in the home and which have been built up in this nation over generations. That is what parents want, but the Bill offers them nothing. They are asking for bread but the Secretary of State is handing out a stone.
The Secretary of State is failing in his duty because he is responsible—nobody else can discharge the responsibility—


for initiating a rational, balanced and constructive debate on education. It should centre on how to improve our schools instead of forcing the whole of the educational discussion back to the sterile conflict between grammar and comprehensive schools.
I should like to quote from a paper which is not normally a supporter of the Conservative Party regarding education or any other matter—The Guardian. In its leader on 17th November last year, headed
Mr. Mulley decides on a dogfight",
it states:
The most profound peril this Government runs, is, increasingly, one of irrelevancy—and the most immediate peril that of a long, bitter, parliamentary session filled with party bickering which at no stage touches the fundamental plight of the country. It is in this context that Mr. Fred Mulley's expressed intent to abolish the eleven-plus by law deserves a severely sceptical, even despairing response.
That is the judgment of an impartial newspaper which, if anything, is favourable to the Labour Party.
Thus, the first indictment of this Bill is its essential irrelevance to the promotion of educational values and standards.
The second count is that, if the Bill is irrelevant to education, it is very relevant to political objectives. It is a further instalment of the policy which has informed the Government's approach to all our social services—that is, to increase the power and control of the State and to exclude from effective influence individuals, voluntary bodies, local authorities, and all who can express an independent point of view.
How else can we explain the phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman in the debate about the voluntary schools relying on their legal rights when he castigated them for deliberately obstructing the Government? The right hon. Gentleman said that they were being deliberately obstructive. They were not. They were relying on rights conferred upon them by this House, and they are entitled to do so until those rights are taken away by this House.
This is a major attempt to destroy the harmonious balance between the Department of Education and Science, the local education authorities and the voluntary schools which was created by the Educa-

tion Act 1944 and has been sustained by every educational statute since.

Mr. Mahon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House in any way at all. It is wrong to suggest that the voluntary educational bodies are not to a great degree supporting Her Majesty's Government on this Bill. I am and have been for many years a member of the Catholic Education Council of England and Wales. It is my strong belief that the hon. Gentleman is erroneous and is misleading this House by suggesting that voluntary bodies are not prepared to co-operate to a great degree in what the Minister said this afternoon.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I must treat with great weight any intervention by the hon. Gentleman. However, we differ in our assessment of the situation. Whatever the fine words which may have been used by the Secretary of State this afternoon, the voluntary schools have found the pressure brought to bear upon them such that, on the whole, they have had to go along with these proposals whether they wanted them or not.
It is clearly right that central Government should be satisfied that any proposals submitted by local education authorities which involve major changes in the character of their schools should not only make good educational sense, but have been adequately discussed with parents, teachers and other interested parties. That is why the Secretary of State has the veto.
However, it is equally clearly wrong for central Government to say that local education authorities, which have conscientiously decided that a particular type of organisation is right for the schools and children in their areas, must submit proposals for reorganisation in one way only—a comprehensive way—regardless of their judgment, parental wishes, local conditions, or available finance. That is precisely what the Bill sets out to do.
At the root of the bad practice in the Bill is a bad principle which was well expressed by the Secretary of State in the debate on the Gracious Speech on 24th November when he said that
it was the Minister who determined national policy and the local authorities which executed it."—[Official Report, 24th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 520.]


That is to reduce the role and status of the local education authorities from that of partners and co-operators in the educational service to that of agents. That is completely different from the view contained in the Education Act.
Whether he knows it or not, the Secretary of State is elevating himself—I do not intend this as a compliment—into a species of educational pope. He is destroying the balance carefully constructed by Lord Butler and the late Mr. Chuter Ede in various sections of the 1944 Act—Section 8, which lays down the rights and duties of local authorities, Section 36, and Section 76, which protects the rights of parents. The purpose of that settlement was to harmonise in a careful balance the rights and duties of parents, local authorities, voluntary schools, Churches and the Secretary of State. It is that balance which this Bill upsets, whether the Secretary of State will admit it or not.
The Bill constitutes a general breach of an agreed settlement. It is being breached unilaterally by the Government. It is worth remembering that it is a particular breach of the words and the pledge of the Prime Minister. I remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to the question:
Will the Labour Party abolish all grammar schools?
He said:
The answer to this as a former grammar school boy is 'Over my dead body. There may be some people who think that's worth it. I don't.'
Today we have the worst of both worlds because the Prime Minister's body is marching, or rather lurching on over the spread out corpses of the grammar schools which he was pledged to protect. I wonder how he will get his carcase off this particular hook.
I turn to consider the clauses of the Bill. Like the Secretary of State, I shall not devote a great deal of time to the miscellaneous provisions in the second half of the Bill. The Bill is a rag-bag, stitched together roughly—I do not accuse the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State of that—by the officials in the Department of Education and Science. It is hardly the stuff out of which a great educational Act will be fashioned. Clause 6 deals with the remuneration of mem-

bers of independent schools tribunals and Clause 7 is concerned with the awards for higher diploma courses. Clause 8 deals with provisions for school milk and provides the Government in general and the Under-Secretary in particular with a cover-up for their acceptance of the changes in the 1971 Act.
Some of us may recall the passionate denunciations which were made by the Under-Secretary of State when those changes were introduced, when she swooped in and out of the debate like a kind of frenzied valkyrie. How strange that she sits here today so meek and mild in acquiescence: she is like Lavinia with her tongue apparently torn out. I shall leave the hon. Lady to her conscience.
The substance of the Bill and its venom lies in the first five clauses, which embody the attempt to impose comprehensive schools throughout the country against the wishes of those who are most concerned.

Mr. John Ovenden: Who are they?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman asks "Who are they?" I shall tell him. Among the many are those who have been in the van of the comprehensive crusade. The Bill has been condemned by one of the most distinguished supporters of the idea of comprehensive schools, namely, Professor Judge. It has also been condemned by the editors of The Times Educational Supplement and The Guardian, who have consistently supported the idea of comprehensive schools. It has been condemned by Lord Alexander, who is possibly the most distinguished figure in the administrative world of education. I should have thought that that list was enough to show that there is strong resistance on educational grounds to the Bill.

Mr. Martin Flannery: What about the parents and the teachers? The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am very willing to mention the parents and teachers. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) indicated that the majority of parents in Southend were opposed to the proposals in the Bill. He said that they wanted to retain the exist-


ing system. What comfort did they get from the Secretary of State? They were told that they were a minority and that minorities, by definition, have no rights.
I was asked "What about the teachers?" In a recent poll in The Times Education Supplement 70 per cent. of teachers in every category of school said that they supported the continuance of grammar schools and did not wish to see them abolished. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Flannery: Mr. Flannery rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have answered his question.
It is strange that at a time when there is disillusionment about the panacea of comprehensive schools and when confidence is sagging among educationists such as Professor Jenks and Professor Cohen, the Government choose to decide that only one type of school shall be provided for every type of child within the maintained system and so impose a uniformity which will rule out variety and severely curtail the possibilities of innovation.
How much better it would have been had the Government heeded the plea of the Opposition, which we advanced in our manifesto of October 1974, for an impartial inquiry into the successes and failures of comprehensive schools. If the Government had only done that before proceeding to compulsion! They should have examined such vitally important questions—which will remain long after the Bill is forgotten—as: what is the right size for a comprehensive school, what is the right type of comprehensive school, should it or should it not be on the 11 to 18 all-through basis, the 11 to 16 basis with sixth-form colleges, or on the middle school concept; what are the merits and demerits of the mixed ability class and what is the case for streaming within the comprehensive school? Those are the questions which need to be answered. They are not answered by the approach embodied in the Bill.
The Government should concentrate their energies and resources on improving existing comprehensive schools, to which the majority of secondary school children go, instead of dissipating resources in

altering the whole character and concept of schools which already have high academic standards. That is the point of difference between the Government and the Opposition on this vital question. We need an honest, painstaking and thorough educational assessment—not a political short-cut by the Secretary of State waving a big stick in order to bludgeon into submission the seven authorities which have decided, as they are entitled to decide, that it is in the best interests of children to retain selection, and the 30 other education authorities—carefully not mentioned by the Secretary of State—which have told him that they will have to retain selection unless greater resources are made available than are at present.
The Secretary of State, in a moment of greater wisdom than that he has shown this afternoon, said, "I cannot abolish selection at a legislative stroke". An examination of the relevant clauses in the Bill amply confirms that judgment because those clauses are highly unlikely to attain even their stated object. What they will do is to create confusion, uncertainty and conflict throughout the educational world.
Clause 1 states:
…local education authorities shall, in the exercise and performance of their powers … have regard to the general principle that such education is to be provided only in schools where the arrangements for the admission of pupils are not based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude.
One thing is very clear. It is clear and has been clear to every Minister in the Department of Education since the passing of the 1944 Act, that it is virtually impossible to enforce a general principle through the courts. That point has been established in the courts in relation to Section 76 of the Act. Let me remind the Secretary of State what that says. It lays down, in the same words, the general principle that
pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.

Mr. Mulley: In all fairness, the hon. Gentleman has been exceedingly selective in some of his quotations. He might at least read the rest of that rather short section. We shall then know exactly what he is getting at.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am perfectly willing to do that. I do not have to read


the section. I can remember it. Section 76 says that pupils shall be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents—subject to the non-incurrence of unreasonable expenditure, et cetera.

Mr. Mulley: Could we have the "et cetera"?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The rest of that section? If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a point of substance here, I am glad to help him.
In the exercise and performance of all powers and duties conferred and imposed on them by this Act the Minister and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.
I fail to see that those additional words, which the Secretary of State has insisted on having read out to the House, add to the argument. My argument is that a general principle as such does not give rise to a cause of action in the courts. That was the ratio decidendi of Watts v. Kesteven. Here we have the Secretary of State using exactly the same language in this clause. The practical conclusion that one draws from that is that the keystone in the arch of the whole Bill is shaky. If that is so, so are all the other provisions which it upholds.
Local authorities are bound to obey the law. The Opposition espouse that principle. We wish that the Government, when they were in opposition, had been equally forthright in their support of that principle. Local authorities are bound to obey the law as enacted by Parliament—no more, no less—and as interpreted by the courts. That is very different from following an arbitrary fiat of the Secretary of State, who may think that people are being what he calls "obstructive", or who is relying on the shaky legal opinions of his advisers in his Department.
How will local authorities decide which of two general principles to follow when they have equal status in the Act and when they wish to follow one and not the other? Which takes precedence? We have the example—which was so cavalierly dismissed by the Secretary of State—given in the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, who showed that in the Southend

area a majority of parents want to retain their existing system. Now the local authority has to give effect to the general principle of the wishes of parents. If the Bill becomes law, it will also have to give effect to the principle that there is to be no education in the selective schools which those parents want. How will there be any mediation between those principles unless it is by litigation in the courts?

Mr. Channon: I should like to interrupt my hon. Friend in case he should underestimate the case. No fewer than three-quarters of parents there support the retention of some grammar schools in the system.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I may add a further gloss to the gloss that he has added to what I said. It was a very high poll, and 65 per cent. of the parents who were eligible took part in it. They amounted to over 17,000 voters. Therefore, it is an extremely apt, relevant and weighty example.
What will be the position, if the Bill becomes law, of those authorities which band children into ability groups, as the ILEA does with children of average, above average and below average ability, so that the bright children are not concentrated in a few schools? I do not know whether this is so, but it was reported in a newspaper that the ILEA has been advised by officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department—perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some information on this matter when she replies to the debate—that if the Bill becomes law these arrangements of banding will be illegal.
We welcome that as a prevention of bussing, which has been so disastrous in the United States of America. The educational achievements of the United States are constantly being lauded by the Secretary of State. Let us hope that he is not creating a situation here in which we have to resort to that kind of expedient, which has caused so much social dislocation and educational upheaval. However, if this interpretation is right, it would mean the creation in our urban centres of wholly neighbourhood schools, which would deprive the disadvantaged child of the very opportunities which that child so desperately needs.
There is the further absurdity that has been touched on in the debate in the intervention of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). That is that at the very moment that the Secretary of State is busily outlawing selection in the Bill, he is equally busy approving selective schemes within the County of Essex, and has done so for Colchester. He has been rebuked by hon. Members of his own party, not only the hon. Member for Harlow but also the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman).
All this muddle has come upon the Secretary of State because he has ignored the warning which was given to him so clearly, by The Guardian and others, that the law is likely, in this matter of delicate educational structures, to get him nowhere very fast. With this Bill the Secretary of State is rather like a frightened woman with a gun—aiming it at every target and hitting only the target at which the gun is not aimed. That is exactly the position into which the right hon. Gentleman is getting himself with this badly drafted Bill. [Interruption.] It is not a Freudian slip. It is a quotation, as a matter of fact, and it will come as no surprise to the House that it is a quotation from Walter Bagehot.
What I have described is a fairly good measure of the confusion and uncertainty that will be created by this Bill—and we have so far reached only its first clause! However, the second clause makes the situation worse. It requires local authorities to submit proposals to give effect to a general principle whose legal status is in itself dubious. What kind of muddle will they get into when these proposals are put forward? The Secretary of State referred to the proposals having to be put forward within a specified time. That is not being frank with the House. The Bill has no specified time. The only time specified is that which is to be arbitrarily fixed by the Secretary of State himself.
There are inadequate cash resources for these projects. The £25 million which the Secretary of State heralded with such a fanfare now turns out to be a mere allocation of resources in the form of loan sanction, so there will be no grant as such to these schools. This loan sanction, inadequate though it is in form, is even more inadequate in substance. When we last debated this matter, in

November of last year, the Secretary of State told the House that already it had been three times over-subscribed by 85 local education authorities. Thus, the only certain result of this part of the Bill will be a multiplication of botched-up schemes, of split-site schools, which this very week have been condemned in very clear terms by the Assistant Masters Association. This clause also upsets the settlement with the voluntary schools. It takes away the long enfranchised exclusive right of the governors of voluntary schools to initiate proposals for reorganisation and confines them to such matters as staff appointments—and this at the very time when the Secretary of State should be considering ways of increasing the powers, the effectiveness, and the representative character of school governors. Instead, he is moving in the opposite direction.
As if all that were not enough, the Secretary of State is arrogating powers to himself, not in name but in effect, to amend schemes, because he is saying that he will in practice take powers to issue detailed directives to local authorities and to governors of schools of whose plans he does not approve.
There is another basic change in Clause 5. This lies in the power which he is taking to control the right of local authorities to take up places outside the maintained school system if he judges it wise so to do, and also retrospective powers of revocation.
By some inferior form of casuistry, the Secretary of State is trying to maintain that he has aways had these powers under the Act. Of course, that is true in a nominalist sense, but under Section 81 of the Act the power given to the Secretary of State to issue regulations is a mandatory power. He is told that he has to issue regulations in order to empower local authorities to take up places. Now the Secretary of State is proposing to take powers to stop them from doing so.
What in effect the Secretary of State is doing in the Bill, starting from bad principles, is creating in practice a legal morass in which he and others less culpable than himself will flounder for a long time to come, unless of course he is rescued from this folly as his predecessor was rescued in 1970, not by the General Election as is sometimes supposed but by the defection of Labour Party supporters


in the Standing Committee so that the central clause of the Bill was lost.
Meanwhile, the Opposition, if we do not defeat the Bill today—we might have a chance to do that if we had some support from the Liberal Party—will endeavour to improve it in Committee. We will do our best to be constructive and to clarify it. We will do our best to remove its arbitrariness. We will insert safeguards for children at existing selective schools who may suffer interruptions in their courses.
Nothing was more significant than the Government jeers which greeted the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), concerned as she was with the effect of the Bill and other legislation on children who are undergoing education at schools which arc at present organised on one basis and who will find themselves in schools organised on another basis at the end of their course. That is important to the Opposition, because we regard children as rather more than painful prerequisites for schemes of comprehensivisation. We believe that every child has a right to the best education that is available according to that child's age, aptitude and abilities.
In Committee we will include constructive proposals about all those aspects of Conservative policy which we have been developing over the past two years about parents' rights, about the importance of providing national tests for literacy and for numeracy, and about monitoring standards so that we know what is going on in our schools. We will include proposals to make teachers a more professional rather than a less professional body.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I have been following the hon. Gentleman's series of new proposals with great fascination. His party was in power for nearly four years. He was a Minister in the Department of Education and Science. What happened to these exciting proposals then?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am referring to the debate on educational policy as it has been developing over the past two years. It is typical of the totally petty and unworthy approach of the hon.

Gentleman, who has just been appointed Minister of State, that he should seek to make some kind of party political point out of a vitally important discussion for parents.

Mr. Mulley: This is rather important because, by inference, the hon. Gentleman was criticising the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition. She was responsible for education in the four years which have just been referred to. I wonder whether there is any connection between this and the hon. Gentleman's alleged comment in the Business News of the Sunday Times when, by some inference, he recognised her as somebody else's grandmother. This is a serious matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That intervention shows merely that the Secretary of State is even more unworthy of holding his office than the Minister of State is of holding his.
Some good may come from this foolish, dangerous and unnecessary measure if we can turn it into a constructive statute. But what an indictment it is of Government education priorities that they find time for this Bill while after a year we have still not even had one day devoted to a debate on perhaps the most important post-war education report—the Bullock Report, with its 330 proposals to improve literacy and standards of learning in our schools.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: Why not a Supply Day for it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not a subject for a Supply Day. It is the Government's duty to provide time for a debate on the Report of a Committee which was appointed by the predecessor of this Secretary of State.
I come to my conclusion. I say to the Secretary of State and his colleague the Minister of State that yesterday's men are bad enough, but yesterday's nostrums and yesterday's obsessions are considerably worse. We will do our best to defeat the Bill today. If we do not succeed in that we will do what we can to improve the objectionable clauses. If we are prevented from doing that, we will, when the moment comes, repeal them, because they constitute a threat both to liberty and to learning.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Seldom have hon. Members had to listen to such pseudo-educational claptrap as the speech which has just emanated from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). The hon. Member's fatal facility for words—or should I say "verbiage"—not merely had most Government Members lost at times but I am sure that it had many Tory Members completely lost.
If the Tories did not have at their disposal the majority of the Press and other media, Heaven knows where they would be if it came to honest argument and educational knowledge about the subject under discussion. The Tory Party will, as always, play its traditional role of holding back human progress and, in this instance, educational progress.
In the course of his peroration the hon. Member quoted The Times Educational Supplement. Thank God we do not regard The Times Educational Supplement as the last word in educational knowledge.
Indeed, when the hon. Gentleman refused to allow me to intervene in his speech he well knew that I had been a member of the national executive of the National Union of Teachers which has within its membership more teachers than all the other teachers' organisations put together. I do not for a moment decry the other teachers' organisations. Not only the National Union of Teachers but most of the other teachers' organisations are in favour of comprehensive education. Therefore, no matter what The Times Educational Supplement in its chaste columns says, that is the reality.
Indeed, it is time that all of us, including hon. Members opposite, some of whom are still in the middle of the last century, welcomed this long overdue Bill. It is time that they realised that the vast majority of the parents they say they represent actually welcome comprehensive education and have approved it, no matter what happened in Southend, West. If hon. Members opposite came to my constituency and others in the city of Sheffield and talked to working people, they would jolly well soon find out that they, like people throughout the country, welcome this Bill, which is long overdue.

Mr. Channon: Mr. Channon rose—

Mr. Flannery: I will not give way. I wish to make a series of points. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave way to the hon. Member for Chelmsford more often than I would have wished and regularly in mid-sentence.
This Bill is a major step on the road to the further democratisation of the education system in our country. The point is well taken when hon. Members opposite laugh. Comprehensive education and the democratisation of education will go from strength to strength, no matter how loudly they laugh, how many quotations they use or how many newspapers they have at their disposal. The British people want comprehensive education.
This view is taken not only by parents who support the Labour Party. Hon. Members opposite should have seen many of the areas in better-off parts of our cities when the 11-plus was in existence. Sadly, a number of people were deeply ashamed that their children had not passed this dreadful examination and were accused of being failures. How dare we accuse children of that age of being failures? But it was repeated into the ears of these young children, and the Tory Party was blowing the trumpet, as it is today. When that iniquitous examination has gone for ever, it will be one of the greatest days our educational system has ever seen. In places where the examination has gone, they would never dream of returning to the selective examinations wanted by the Conservative Party.
I have said before that the Conservative Party wants privileges in every direction. It has taken me to task for saying it, but I repeat it today. Tories want private beds in hospitals and private schools for themselves so that they may have a select, elite group in education. We are totally against that in principle and in philosophy and we believe that the people of this country are with us. The Tories want education according to the depth of the purse, not even according to ability and aptitude, much as we deplore that as well.
Comprehensive education is incomplete as long as grammar schools exist. If the Prime Minister said that grammar schools


would go only over his dead body, he was not stating the policy of the Labour Party. Our policy is the abolition of the 11-plus. What my right hon. Friend meant was that the best aspects of grammar schools—and there were good aspects—would be incorporated within the comprehensive system, and that is what we intend to do. But as long as grammar schools exist as elitist institutions, it is idle nonsense to talk about comprehensive education running in parallel with them.
Between 5 per cent. and 20 per cent. of children in an area are creamed off and sent to elitist schools. The rest go to schools which not even the Tory Party has defended. I have not received a single letter defending secondary modern schools as institutions, even though the teachers have done their best, in difficult circumstances, to educate children. Parents do not agree with secondary modern schools, but they agree that all children should have access to education in comprehensive schools.

Sir John Hall: I cannot allow that point to pass unchallenged. It is untrue that parents condemn secondary modern schools and do not want their children to go to them. In my constituency, the secondary modern schools are excellent and many parents welcome the opportunity of sending their children to them.

Mr. Flannery: I said I had not received a single letter from a parent. I was not speaking of parents throughout the country. I cannot prove how they feel. In the same way as we are told that 70 per cent. of people in the Southend, West constituency support elitist education, they also support an MP who is in favour of it, which I deplore in exactly the same way. No doubt the two things are inter-linked.

Mr. Channon: Will the hon. Member give way? He has referred to me.

Mr. Flannery: I wish to get on. I have already taken a considerable time.

Mr. Channon: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) does not desire to give way, he canot be pressed to do so.

Mr. Channon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I of course accept your ruling and bow to it, is it not a convention of the House that when one lion. Member refers to another he then gives way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter which the hon. Member concerned must decide.

Mr. Flannery: One point which is not often made in education debates is that our State primary schools are comprehensive. Children from a particular neighbourhood, no matter who their parents are, go to the same primary school. Those of us who taught in primary schools know that as soon as the blight of the 11-plus was lifted from us, a great cloud disappeared from the education horizon. It meant that, instead of catering for that examination, we were able to teach our children properly without having to look over our shoulders to consider how many children we would get through the examination. Virtually no primary school teachers who have had experience of the 11-plus would want to reintroduce it, and that is an important factor.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford talked about streaming. Many of us want streaming abolished not merely in primary schools but in secondary schools as well. He said that we should be discussing the size of comprehensive schools and their age range. What, in heaven's name, makes him think that we are not discussing the size of comprehensive schools, their age range and whether there should be streaming? We are discussing all these matters, and to pose them against the struggle for comprehensive education was typical of the tenor of the hon. Member's speech.
Many so-called comprehensive schools are often condemned after a creaming-off process has taken place. What is being condemned in these cases is a secondary modern school. The creaming-off process takes place and then the schools are open to unprincipled attacks launched against them by people who want to retain grammar schools. They say that these schools are comprehensive when, in reality, they are not.
The motives of the anti-comprehensive lobby are clear. They are basically elitist.
We expect the Conservatives to condemn comprehensive education. Many of us would worry if they did not. In time they will undoubtedly move over to it because it will be a vote winner.
They make numerous unprincipled arguments. Every weakness in our society is laid at the door of the teachers and blamed on comprehensive education. One is led to think that a school is an organisation for rectifying the evils of the capitalist society. It is not. It is an organisation which tries to do its best within the framework of a society which is still based on privilege. The Labour Party is doing its utmost to make inroads into that society by trying to make it more benevolent and by utilisng aspects of it in the interests of the working people who have been oppressed by it for so long.
There are normal difficulties in every school, and those difficulties are caused not by the teachers but by the system. There are financial problems in every school. The Conservatives give the impression that the Labour Party loves to make cuts in education. I am compelled to ask what public expenditure the Conservatives would cut. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asks the Leader of the Opposition what she would cut, the right hon. Lady fails to give a clear answer. We have, however, been told clearly that the Conservatives will not cut education expenditure. I deplore education cuts and we are told that the Conservatives take the same view.
In a speech at Ilkley on Saturday—obviously without his hat—the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), who is secretary of the Conservative Education Committee, said that it was necessary to go back to 1931 to find an equivalent savaging of the education system. He said that more was to come in next month's White Paper. One gets the impression that the Conservatives would never dream of cutting education. They must think that we are daft—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We do.

Mr. Flannery: They must think we are dreaming. We know that they would cut everything affecting working people if they could get away with it, but they would cut nothing for themselves or their

children. We are defending and democratising education, and the Bill is one of the methods of doing that. It embodies a great advance and it will and should be attacked by all educational black paperites, backwoodsmen and elitists.
While the attacks are continuing against the Bill, the voters will be looking on. When we proposed comprehensive education in Sheffield, we won the biggest vote ever. That is reality, and the Conservatives should think carefully before they attack a proposal which is supported by most of the people. The Bill will be supported by millions of Tory voters who want better and better education for greater and greater numbers of our people.

6.4 p.m.

Sir John Eden: I have the privilege of being the governor of a direct grant school which as a result of the actions of the Government has been forced to go independent. I am also the director of an independent school. In my constituency there are two fine grammar schools which have served the community extremely well over many years. I therefore have a considerable interest in the Bill.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that the Bill has nothing to commend it. It is one of a series of bad Bills produced by the Government. It is the product of blind ideological prejudice and basically serves no educational purpose. As a piece of so-called social engineering it will prove highly counterproductive. It is a measure which, if it is to achieve anything, must add substantially to public expenditure at a time when the need is for the very opposite. The fact that the Government are pushing it through at this time—or at any time—shows how far removed Ministers have become from the feelings of ordinary people and the realities which are properly their concern.
Among the worst features associated with the Bill are the strong-arm tactics which the Government have been using to try to browbeat councils into conformity with their requests. Refusing to sanction expenditure on buildings not forming part of a comprehensive scheme constitutes nothing less than naked blackmail.
The declared aim of the Bill is to abolish selection. Is that what this measure will achieve? It will certainly not achieve the ending of selection within schools. I assume that even this Government are not attempting to end competitive selection within the schools.
Whether or not that is the intention of the Bill, it may well come near to doing so. The great educational worry is that the opportunity for competitive streaming within schools will be diminished and that this will lead to a general lowering of educational standards in the schools that are to be created. Selection goes on to a considerable extent in comprehensive schools. That is certainly so in other countries which have systems organised on the basis of neighbourhood or locality schools. It is true of France. There is a considerable degree of selection and competition, particularly in relation to aptitude and ability, in schools in Russia. If selection is ended completely the result will be gravely damaging in educational terms for it will leave little opportunity to seek out those children best qualified for further encouragement and advancement.
Worst of all in its immediate effects, however, will be the damage that this measure will do to good existing local schemes. I give the House a brief summary of the system which operates now in my constituency. It is taken from details which were sent to me. The system is based on the belief that every pupil is entitled to develop his abilities to the full, both for his own sake and for that of the nation. To achieve this the system provides that about 16 per cent. of an age group be allocated to grammar schools at 11 years, nominated by their own primary school teachers based on continued assessment, their school record and the knowledge of their teachers. Additionally, the teachers allocate to a GCE or CSE course, without limit, such pupils as they think would benefit from such a course in the bilateral school of their area or in any other school of their choice in the same town. Over the years the primary schools have found this initial allocation to have worked well bearing in mind the all-embracing provision of subsequent adjustment built into the system. This subsequent adjustment is a special feature

of the Bournemouth system which has proved to be extremely successful.
Once the allocation is made, should any errors be discovered a pupil can be transferred, whether it be from grammar school to bilateral school or vice versa, or from non-GCE courses in a bilateral school to a GCE course within that school or to a grammar school. Moreover, the bilateral school is free to allocate to its GCE course any pupil not recommended by his primary school if his record suggests that to be appropriate.
At 16, pupils have the choice of continuing at the bilateral school or, for those with suitable qualifications, of working for A levels at the grammar school or for A levels and equivalent qualifications at the college of technology. That is a brief summary of the Bournemouth system.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: What proportion of children in the country have this wonderful choice which the hon. Gentleman recommends?

Sir J. Eden: I was not referring to the country as a whole. This is a system which has been developed and pioneered within my constituency. It has operated over many years and has shown itself to be extremely successful.
If the Bill gets on to the statute book, that successful system will have to come to an end. It is a retrograde step which offers no educational advantages. The educational advantages of the Bournemouth system have been proven over many years by the outstanding successes it has achieved. It is small wonder that the district councillors in my constituency passed the following resolution:
At a time of financial stringency and when much national concern is being expressed about the decline in educational standards, this council reaffirms its confidence in the present Bournemouth system of education, and urges the Dorset County Council to retain it.
That resolution emphasises the strength of feeling in the area.
I endorse in relation to Bournemouth what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said about his constituency. Parents and many others associated with education wish to keep to the present system. I hope that the county councillors who may have devised different schemes and different systems appropriate to the county district


will note what my hon. Friend said. The Bill is not law. It is not on the statute book. There is no compulsion to change to another system or to depart from the system already devised which has been found to be appropriate for the particular environment unless the law requires it. There is a long way to go before the measure becomes law. I am encouraged by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford openly declared himself as seeking to prevent the Bill's becoming law and committed the Conservative Party to repealing it at the first opportunity should it get on to the statute book.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mallon: I welcome the Bill, though not, perhaps, in its entirety. I have already voiced my appreciation of the work done by my right hon. Friend the Minister. When I look round the Chamber these days I find that I am a little more mature in age than are other hon. Members. I look back at my modest career as a local and national politician. Having been scurrilously attacked by newspapers for statements that I have never made, I should like to take this opportunity of saying that during my lifetime I have had nothing but the highest possible regard for the endeavours made by grammar schools, direct grant schools and others. As a member and one-time chairman of an education committee, I regarded it as a privilege to be able to send to grammar schools children who otherwise would have been deprived of the opportunity of a first-class education.
I went to an Irish Christian Brothers' school. It was not a grammar school but a central school. At the age of 14, I went to work on the Liverpool dockside, but it was always a passion with me to see that other children in the working-class area in which I had the privilege of being born had the opportunity of a first-class education. I pay tribute to the religious orders and the teachers who work in direct grant schools. The Minister rightly said that those schools were founded for the education of the poor. Today, "poor" is a relative term. One of my hon. Friends spoke about sickness. I have always found it difficult to make a comparison between the "poor sick" and the "sick poor". That is how I

have to think, representing as I do the town of Bootle.
In spite of that, the direct grant system is not satisfactory. It cannot match the educational demands of the people I represent. For many years I was on an examination panel of a local authority. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. The meeting that adjudicated over the educational lives of many of my constituents in those days was over in five minutes. We were told that 300 places were available at local grammar schools, direct grant schools and religious establishments. The line was drawn at 300, and it mattered not what happened to the rest. When Labour took control, I was able to stop that regrettable practice.
I have been accused by ill-advised people of founding two grammar schools. I gave assistance to founding two grammar schools, one of which is the St. John Bosco school, which is the Salesian college in Bootle. Both schools, of their own volition, have gone into the comprehensive system, without any prompting from me, because they thought it was best to do so. Most of my right hon. Friends who grace the Government Front Bench would not have been able to do so had they not had the opportunity of a grammar school education.
We should be churlish not to pay great tribute to the sense of vocation shown by many teachers. I do not wish to get rid of those qualities; I want them to remain in a new system of education that gives a better opportunity to more people. In Merseyside most direct grant schools are coming into the comprehensive system of their own volition. I appeal to the others to do so. As one who has championed voluntary schools all my life, I believe that if ever a country, or the world, needed the influence of these good teachers, this country and the world need that influence in education today.
The problems have been rightly outlined, but those facing children today were not even part of the scene when we were at school. I would not want to be a young child today. The problems that parents, children and teachers have to face are tremendous.
We must recognise that the comprehensive system will not alway prevail. The motto on which I was elected in the town I represent is that of looking to


the past, the present and the futureRespice Aspice Prospice. In due course another system will be demanded. Of necessity, we have to educate children according to the needs of the country, whether they are educated at direct grant schools, comprehensive schools, or any other schools. That is what is demanded of Parliament, and God help the parliamentarian who will not fulfil the wishes and ambitions of this great nation and the people who produce its children.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Gentleman's remarks have been extremely interesting, especially his reference to the probability that the comprehensive system will be superseded, but if this Bill becomes law how will another system even begin to evolve? We must remember that the Bill provides for only one system. Is it not making progress very difficult if we have to pass an Act of Parliament each time we want to introduce changes to the system?

Mr. Mahon: I do not think so. My right hon. Friend rightly said that he would much rather make progress by agreement than by legislation. He said that this afternoon. It is better that we make progress by natural evolution and development.
When the churches first started educating people there was very little State contribution. It was only in the 1870s that we had our first Education Act. We have had all kinds of Education Act since then. Some of those measures have been brilliant in their conception. It was said yesterday that we berate ourselves too much. I think that that is the case. Let us say something about the good that we do and have done. Very often we are criticised by the Americans, and at the moment many Americans are sending money to Ireland to attack Britain. They would be better employed putting that money into their own education system. In America no contribution is made to voluntary schools, but we assist any Church that wishes to build a school. That point has not been made often enough from either side of the House. Let it be appreciated that 85 per cent. of the capital cost of any religious education establishment is paid by the State.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: By the taxpayer.

Mr. Mahon: Yes. The taxpayer pays 100 per cent. of teachers' wages. He pays, for example, for the books and the internal painting. If the direct grant schools, which I favour very much for their past contribution, come into the system they will at least benefit financially. If they decide that they have their own educational point of view, I shall not disagree with them. If they want to stay outside, that is all right.
I am always talking about hastening slowly. In education, that should be our approach. My right hon. Friend said that there will be no undue haste in pushing this scheme further than it can go. I am just as anxious as anyone else to see that the boys and girls in the county borough of Bootle and the urban district of Litherland—an area that I have the pleasure to represent—enjoy first-class opportunities. Bearing in mind all the difficulties that the comprehensive schools have faced since their embryonic days, a tremendous improvement has already taken place.
Everyone knows that I believe in the right of parents to educate their children according to their own religious beliefs. That right must be maintained at all costs. We are living in an extremely difficult world—a world in which that right would be denied by many people.
I believe that my right hon. Friend will be having discussions about children who might be attending boarding schools. We must recognise that all children are different. It is hard for any child when he or she is deprived of a parent. In my youth, when a child was deprived of a parent it was usually because the mother or father had died. In these permissive days it is not unusual for a child to be deprived of its parents for other reasons. It is very hard for one parent, whether it be the mother or father, to educate a family. Almighty God knew what he was doing when he gave a child a mother and a father. But if that cannot be, we must give aid and succour to the children of one-parent families, irrespective of the circumstances. In education matters those children must be given further succour and assistance.
We cannot have class barriers. If we provide assistance at one level, we must provide it at all levels. In these days it


is not unusual for my constituents, and for people throughout the country to have to earn their livings by tearing their homes apart and travelling to many parts of the world. It is essential that by means of this Bill we find financial succour, in the education sense, for children who are deprived of their parents for various reasons. Such children must be maintained in a way that the people demand.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for taking rather longer than I should have done.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I feel that I am privileged to be called to speak after the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon). For the first time in this debate the hon. Gentleman removed party politics and introduced concern and compassion for children. I think that all of us, however fervent we are about our own party political approach to education, agree that it is the children who should come first.
Once more I reiterate my party's support for the principles of comprehensive education. In principle we support steady progress towards a non-selective system. I do not think that this is one of the great measures to come before the House, but I think that the Secretary of State gave us reasonable hope when he said that he was willing to consider any exceptional case on its merits. In Committee we can certainly hammer it out and make it into a very much better piece of legislation.
The Education Act 1944 divided secondary education into three classes—grammar, technical and secondary modern. It is absolutely right that we should appreciate that we cannot today categorise secondary schoolchildren in that way. We cannot look at a child and say that he is grammar school material, technical school material, or a failure—or whatever euphemism we may care to employ in relation to secondary modern education. We therefore agree that it is absolutely right and proper for comprehensivisation to be introduced, or for selection to be abolished.
In education it is extraordinarily simple to find statistics to bear out whatever argument we may have. In the Bill seven authorities are mentioned I am

sure that most people in this Chamber with a concern for education will have received letters, as I have, from all seven authorities, or from people living within them. I also have statistics from which I have been able to prove absolutely anything that I have ever wanted to prove—because that is what educational statistics are about.
I have here a letter from a headmaster in Buckinghamshire. Far from saying that the whole of Buckinghamshire is behind the local authority, this man writes in reasonable terms and says that 14 years ago in his school there was a GCE 0-level group that provided no problems, and a slow-learning group that provided no problems. There were 180 pupils who lay between those two extremities and provided so many social and disciplinary problems that affected the academic standard of the school that the staff decided to do something about it.
They decided on a mixed ability group. It was tried with a one-year group, and an evaluation was made on three criteria—social attitude, discipline and academic achievement. A distinct improvement was found in social attitude and discipline, and no change was found in academic achievement.
One could go on in this way, because headmasters and educationists will use whatever material they have to prove whatever they want to prove The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and I appreciate that what was done at Southend, West was done decently and properly—the sample was a large one—but I still maintain that if the questions that the parents were asked had been phrased differently they would in all likelihood have presented different answers.
Parents differ, people differ, and, above all, children differ. That is why we have always felt that the 11-plus examination, the 12-plus examination, or any other form of selection, is grossly unfair.
In the course of one or two hours of a child's life, his entire academic future lies in the balance. No one has ever taken much notice of the promises of new bicycles or lollipops, or of all those tensions that build up in children who are just not good at exams, however good they are at other things.
I do not believe that this debate is really about comprehensivisation, selection, or non-selection. It is not even about statistics. It is really about compulsion. Is it right for the Secretary of State, or the Department of Education and Science, to use compulsion to force unwilling local authorities to do what the duly and democratically elected Government of this country want them to do? The answer has to be "Yes", otherwise, what on earth are we here for? If we in Parliament cannot come to an overall blanket decision and ask authorities to implement it in their own areas, I wonder what we are here for.
I put it to the Conservative Front Bench that when the councillors of Clay Cross behaved as they did, nobody said, as has been said of the people of Sutton, Buckingham, Manchester and so on, "What a fine example of an upstanding, independent council." They said, instead, "This is absolute lawlessness" and the law was the law that this House of Commons—

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: It is not the law. What is the hon. Member trying to say?

Mr. Freud: In the case of housing finance, it was simply a matter of taking away from the local authority the right to come to its own decision about the rents of houses.
We have spoken about the main issues of education. We shall, in Committee, no doubt, speak of them again, and make this into a better Bill. Many of us, at some time or another, have urged the Secretary of State to make selection illegal. He has not asked to do it overnight. He has not asked to do it without consultation, or even without notice, because everybody has been given a great deal of notice. If the Secretary of State wants to do this, my party will support him, and we shall be in the Lobby with him.
The Bill is not an ideal one, but it can be made very much better in Committee. I therefore support the Secretary of State.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Paul Channon: I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking immediately after the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), because what I have to say will in a way

be exactly relevant to the remarks that he made—and, indeed, to some remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who, I am sorry to say, did not give way to me. I did not wish to attack him in a partisan sense. I only wished to put one point to him.
I have no objection whatsoever to comprehensive education. I believe that there are many examples in this country showing that comprehensive education works extremely well. There are many places where it is successful on educational grounds. There are, unfortunately, also many places where it is not successful, but that is a different matter.
I am not saying that on principle I am against it. What I believe, however, above all in education—I am sorry that the Liberal Party does not take this view—is that parents, in particular, have the right to choose for themselves what system they would like to see.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said that the people of Sheffield were delighted with their experiences of comprehensive education and wished it to continue. As far as I know, no one has the least intention of wishing to remove their opportunities in this respect, if comprehensive education is what they want. If it is working well in Sheffield, I am delighted to hear it. But the hon. Member might at least also allow my constituents—and those in the rest of Southend—the right to decide for themselves what their system of education should he. I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely that that, in effect, is what this debate is all about.

Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is no chance of seeing how good a comprehensive school is unless it has a chance to be truly comprehensive? Our great objection is that, while children in that part of the country can be creamed off into other types of education—in a way that does not apply in Sheffield, Hillsborough—there is no way of seeing what comprehensive education would be like there.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member for Isle of Ely is saying, in effect, that against their will the parents of Southend should adopt a system they do not want in order to discover whether, at the end of the day,


they like it or not. With respect, that is not a view that I, as the elected Member for the area, can possibly support.
I ask the Secretary of State to give this matter serious consideration. In my own constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), at the instigation of the Essex education authority we had a referendum of all the parents of children of school age to see what they wanted the system of education to be. The questions were in no way loaded, as the hon. Member for Isle of Ely appeared to suggest. Parents were offered three schemes. The first was a system of comprehensive schools for pupils between the ages of 11 and 18, which would have resulted in the abolition of the selection procedure. The third was a scheme retaining two selective schools, with the remainder going comprehensive for pupils aged between 11 and 18. The third was the existing system. The percentage taking part in the referendum was every bit as high as in a parliamentary election. In fact, I think it was higher than in the last election. Of those taking part, 51·46 per cent.—8,995 out of 17,000—said that they wished to keep the existing scheme of education in the town. A further 4,479, or a little over 25 per cent., expressed a preference for a comprehensive scheme. The preference of 3,916 was for the intermediate scheme, which would have resulted in two selective schools, with the remainder comprehensive.
An overall majority of the parents of children of school age in the town wanted to continue the present system, and of those who did not want it in its entirety, a further 22 per cent. wanted to retain two selective schools in the town.
It was an enormous poll. It was not a flash in the pan. It resulted in a large majority. I believe that to be a convincing demonstration of local will, freely and democratically expressed.

Mr. Mulley: It is important to take note of the parents' views, and the hon. Gentleman has explained the views of the majority of his constituents. But I understand him to be arguing that although Southend represents the minority view in the nation as a whole the majority view in the town should prevail. What about the minority among his con-

stituents? How are we to take care of them?

Mr. Channon: The Secretary of State told us in a previous debate that he had a First-Class Honours degree. Surely he must see the fallacy of that argument. Until now, education has always been based on the principle that it is for local people to decide the system of education that they wish to adopt and that the Secretary of State, at the end of the day, has the right to refuse any scheme that is put up to him. Here is an example of a town that used to be a county borough with an education authority, with good schools of all kinds, which, by a perhaps surprising but convincing majority, has made a definite choice. If the Secretary of State were in my position I am sure that he would fight just as hard for the principle of allowing the people of my town, who have expressed their views by such a convincing majority to choose the system of education that they want.

Mr. Mulley: The 1944 Act was based entirely on the opposite premise, which was to lay down a national system and to require by law, no matter what the local authorities thought about it, the separation of schools between primary and secondary, and to abolish all-age schools. In that sense, the idea of a national system of education has been with us since 1944.

Mr. Channon: It would be foolish of me to argue with the Secretary of State about the 1944 Education Act. However, it was my understanding that it was for the local authority to nut forward a scheme of education, which the Secretary of State had the power to reject or approve. I have never been told until now that the Secretary of State's view is that in the future there will be a national system of education, imposed from Whitehall and implemented in every town regardless of whether the majority of parents want it.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Mr. Bryan Davies (Enfield, North) rose—

Mr. Channon: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have promised to be brief—

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say that I am under great pressure? Almost every hon. Member who attempts to intervene also wishes to sneak in the debate. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has promised to be brief. I hope that we shall all encourage him.

Mr. Channon: The arguments on education grounds are mixed. Many people support comprehensive schools. Many people are against them. I have seen good comprehensive schools. I have seen good grammar schools. The standard of education in Southend is very high, as it is in many other parts of the country.
I am violently against this Bill, because in my view the Secretary of State is wrong to say that in a situation in which the majority of parents in a town have expressed their views so clearly he wishes to coerce them against their will.
We are told that there are only seven education authorities in the country without a system of comprehensive education. If it is so universally marvellous, as we have been led to believe, and if it is so universally popular with electors, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough told us, why do we not leave those education authorities to continue as they are, in the belief that in due course they will be converted by the brilliance of the system elsewhere—if that is the case being made by the Secretary of State? I suspect that it is not, however, because we know that there is a very strong case for saying that there should be an inquiry into the present system of secondary education.
As a constituency Member, I think that I am entitled to say that when the Government of the day attempt to ride roughshod over the wishes of parents in my constituency it is my duty to oppose this Bill.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. John Ovenden: I begin by agreeing with one of the remarks of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). He said that we ought to move along the road in our education debates and start discussing some of the other education issues that matter—the size of schools, streaming within schools, and the value and purpose of education in our society. I have no doubt that we shall come to these matters eventually. This Bill takes us just a little nearer to

the day when we can put behind us this sterile argument about selection and get down to discussing the real education issues that confront us.
The fact that we are still having to argue the case against selection long after—decades after—the overwhelming body of education opinion has been convinced of the failure of selection, is evidence of the fact that in many areas of the country, unfortunately, education policy is entrusted to people whose decisions are based not on the merits of educational arguments but on a rigid adherence to their own prejudices.
In our last debate on comprehensive education, I claimed that we had advanced no further towards understanding the position of the Conservative Party on the issue of comprehensive education. I fear that that is equally true in today's debate. The Opposition's greatest dilemma, apparently, stems from their wish to avoid upsetting their many Conservative colleagues in local government who saw the light many years ago and accepted comprehensive education while giving moral support to the more reactionary Tory authorities which, even now, are fighting any challenge to the system of privilege in education.
It is a great pity that Opposition spokesmen cannot rise above their obsession with their own internal party problems, declare precisely where they stand on this issue, and fight for the policies in which they believe.
Perhaps it is a tribute to the strength of the arguments for comprehensive education that we now hear so little direct argument against the principle. Even the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) could find nothing adverse to say against that principle. It is obvious that the main argument is widely accepted and that all we have to deal with in debate after debate on comprehensive education are these bogus and petty debating points that are still used.
First, we are told that, whatever the merits of the argument, local education authorities must still be free to decide. The logic of that argument is that although we should accept that comprehensive education is a superior form of education—as has been accepted by so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—at the same time we should


condone the deliberate act of some local education authorities in denying the benefits of that system to the children in their areas.
If we fail to approve the Bill we shall be elevating the principle of local independence above our duty to ensure the best possible education for our children. On an issue such as this, the issue of local independence and autonomy must take a back seat to what we believe to be the proper established system of education—the system that we believe to be educationally more beneficial for our children and to have been proved in practice.
In any event, there is no evidence—though some Tory Members try to suggest there is—that the composition of local education authorities is the best reflection of local needs. My constituency provides an example of the fallacy of that argument, and is in almost direct contrast to the Southend, West constituency. The Tory-dominated Kent Education Authority has set its face against reorganisation, but it is not included in the seven because it is far too subtle and devious in its opposition to comprehensive education.
Although the county has set its face against reorganisation, eight of the 11 county councillors who represent areas in my constituency were elected on a policy of comprehensive education, and the constituency is represented by a Member of Parliament who was elected in two successive General Elections on a manifesto committing the Government to secondary reorganisation. In addition, the overwhelming majority of local teachers, and, on the best evidence available, the majority of parents, are in favour of comprehensive schools. It is a distortion of the argument about local democracy to maintain that because such an area has the misfortune to be included in the area of a county council that is composed of a majority of the most reactionary Conservatives it should be denied the benefits of reorganisation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman does not believe in democracy.

Mr. Ovenden: I do. I believe in the right of electors to decide this issue, but if they claim this right to stand against comprehensive education I ask them to

take a stand against those Conservative authorities which are defying local opinion and refusing to go comprehensive.
The debate on this issue in recent years has been dominated by the spurious argument—fortunately we have not heard too much of it today, but we shall no doubt hear it later—over freedom of choice. It is a myth to pretend that there is any choice in our present education system. Selection means that the choice is made for children, often by an archaic and inaccurate method of assessment. Under our present system, no parent and no child can claim any right of entry to a grammar school if he or she fails the selection process. The only people in our society who can exercise any educational choice are those who can afford to buy their way out if it fails to provide their children with the opportunities they desire. If that were not so, perhaps more interest would be shown by some of those parents and by Tory Members about the way in which the State system functions.
I often think that it might be a good idea to ban from service on local education authorities those parents who send their children to private schools, because by their very actions they demonstrate their lack of confidence in the State system and a lack of confidence in their own ability and decisions to fashion the shape of the State system.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Sameness and drabness are all that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Ovenden: Why should those who have chosen to opt out of the State system retain the power to make decisions over the education of other peoples' children?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Because they were elected to do so.

Mr. Ovenden: I suspect that if they had not lost confidence in their own abilities they would be prepared to subject their children to the results of the decisions that they make in the State system.
The fierce arguments that still rage over comprehensive education appear to be confined to such areas as Southend. They still rage in those areas where there is no comprehensive education. They do not rage so fiercely in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,


Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) where there is a system of comprehensive education, and this proves—

Mr. Channon: Mr. Channon rose—

Mr. Ovenden: I shall not give way at this point. I shall do so later. I suspect that the lack of fierce argument implies that in those areas where comprehensive education has been seen in practice and tried the opposition has waned. Opposition to the idea of comprehensive education has died within a few years of its being introduced and its values being seen in practice.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman referred to my constituency. He may like to know that it has two comprehensive schools which are very good.

Mr. Ovenden: It is unfortunate that Conservative Members insist on misunderstanding the nature of comprehensive education. One cannot have a comprehensive school in the midst of a selective system. It is the system that we are talking about, not what label one attaches to a certain type of school. One does not produce a comprehensive system of education by renaming secondary modern schools as comprehensives. I know that doing that often benefits the argument of Tory Members, because they can label secondary modern schools as comprehensive, give them a limited ability intake, and then point to their failure to achieve the academic standards of the grammar schools. This is continuing but it will not wash as a comprehensive system.
I hope that when the Bill reaches the statute book, which I trust will be very soon, the Secretary of State will give some priority—perhaps the first priority—to securing complete reorganisation in areas such as my own, where schemes that were introduced many years ago, as an intermediate step towards comprehensive education, have become entrenched as a permanent system. More than 10 years ago the 11-plus examination was ended in what was then the Thames Side Division in Kent. It was replaced by a strange system of high schools and upper schools, which succeeded only in deferring selection from the age of 11 to the age of 13. It was an administrative convenience to ease the transition towards com-

prehensive education. It was never intended to be any more than a transitional phase, because it could never be a viable system in the long term. It could never be viable, because it involved selection, at the age of 13, of 25 per cent. of high school pupils to upper schools, and it therefore ensured that the high schools could never be in a position to provide the wide range of courses that were necessary for pupils who remained in those schools.
The maintenance of that system in my area has been brought about by the dogmatic, doctrinaire determination of the Kent County Council to see that the original aim of comprehensive reorganisation never comes about. It has been denied by that council that the scheme was ever intended as an interim scheme, but that statement does not fool the people who were involved in the discussions at the time of the reorganisation. It is the obvious aim now of these areas of the Kent Education Authority to persuade other areas of Kent to accept this inadequate and educationally inefficient system. They want to do so to head off the moves towards comprehensive education. They want to offer this as a halfway house, with no intention whatever of taking any further steps towards reorganisation.
My own area is being forced to accept a system that it does not want—the failure of which it has witnessed—so that the system can be foisted on other areas that have never seen it in practice. I ask the Secretary of State to look at these areas in particular and to take what action he can to ensure that in those areas reorganisation goes ahead very quickly, as originally intended.
Within my own area, it cannot be claimed that reorganisation would be a costly business. The initial step having been taken 10 years ago, reorganisation can be brought about without the expenditure of vast amounts of money. I suspect that my own education committee realises this, and that is why it has refused throughout to submit a scheme for reorganisation. It knows that once the scheme is prepared and costed there will be no argument about further progress towards comprehensive education, and there will be no way in which it can prevent the move. The main argument about the cost of change will be


taken away, because the scheme will prove clearly that comprehensive education can come about quickly and easily and at small expense.
I want to say a few words about the mechanics of the Bill. I accept that it will be difficult for the Secretary of State to introduce systems of comprehensive education in an area in which the local education authority is reluctant to see them implemented. We cannot run away from that, or delude ourselves. I think it a pity, seeing the job that lies ahead in reorganising education on comprehensive lines, that the Conservative Party so foolishly abolished the system of local administration through divisional executives. That would have provided a good opportunity for the Secretary of State to ask for plans and views from the local areas, from the people at the grass roots, where local education authorities were refusing to co-operate.
However, although we no longer have the divisional executives, in most areas we have the education advisory committees on a local basis. I should welcome any move to give more substance and a few more teeth to these bodies. I am sure that there are many areas where local education authorities are refusing to co-operate where the education advisory committees would be more than happy to submit direct to the Secretary of State their proposals for reorganisation. I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to accept their views and to bring them into the process of decision-making on the future shape of education in their areas.

Mr. Speaker: May I make a plea to the House? If hon. Members make 10-minute speeches, all who wish to do so will have the opportunity to be called.

7.3 p.m.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker.
This Bill is shorter than the infamous "Short" Bill of 1970, but it is none the less unpleasant. In fact, it is rather tougher than that Bill. In marked contrast was the 1944 Act, which was notable for the bipartisan atmosphere in which it was debated. Since those days, our discussions have been somewhat sterile.
Although the Secretary of State may be right in saying that his present Bill is in a form similar to the 1944 Act in altering the structure of schools, I argue that it is definitely against the spirit of that Act, and, needless to say, it is out of all proportion to the problem which it is designed to cure. One has the strong impression, therefore, that this is a bone thrown to the dogs of the Left whom the Prime Minister was so keen on licensing not long ago.
The nature of the situation is unmistakable. The boundaries between local government and central Government have been sliding and are continuing to slide. This Bill will accelerate that slide, so that the boundaries virtually disappear. How the Minister of State, who, one suspects, is keen on regional government, will reconcile that change in the balance of authority with his proposals for the English regions, I am not sure. The key point is that local education authorities will now be sent back their proposals and be forced to alter them at the whim of the Secretary of State—not at the choice of the courts according to law but at the sole discretion of the Secretary of State. Hence, we see a massive widening of the Secretary of State's authority in secondary education just as we have seen it in higher education over the reorganisation of the colleges. Plainly in character, the Government are exerting their authority, through Whitehall and through Ministers, with Big Brother attitudes all down the line.
The universality of Clause I must be opposed because it is clearly against the spirit of the 1944 Act. Section 1 of the Act called for a Minister to secure
a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.
There is now a totally different approach. The Minister is trying to establish something which is precisely not a varied and comprehensive education service in every area.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman speaks of the 1944 Act as though it was one of the tablets of stone brought down from the mountain, as though it was eternal. Does he not realise that the process represented by the various Bills which have been passed, as I hope that


this will be, is one of change which proceeds steadily within that framework?

Dr. Hampson: That is exactly my point. The pattern of schools has continued to evolve. In fact, it was established not by the 1944 Act but under the first post-war Labour Government, and the basic reason why we condemn this Bill is that it uses force to produce a different pattern, and the Secretary of State is doing it merely in order to push around what he regards as a few recalcitrant Tory authorities—forgetting that some, for example, Leicester and North Yorkshire, were in the forefront of reorganisation.
The Secretary of State's scheme will have widespread and fundamental repercussions. It will change the balance established under the 1944 Act, and not just the balance between the Government and local authorities. The cardinal point of the 1944 Act was that it placed a duty to educate children not on the local authority—certainly not on the Secretary of State—but on the parents. The duty of the local authority was to provide schools so that parents could carry out that duty.
I remind the House of what was said during the debates on the 1944 Act. The then Member for Kilmarnock asked the President of the Board of Education:
Does this include a choice of schools as well as curriculum?
The reply was "Yes". Another Member asked, with reference to Clause 8 of the Bill which became Section 76 of the Act, whether
the Minister will indicate what machinery he will create so that the voices of parents … will be co-ordinaed and brought together."—[Official Report, 15th February 1944; Vol. 397, c. 142–3.]
There are two cardinal points to be remembered here. The intention was that there should be discretion and variety in each area, and that the discretion should be that of the local authority. As Lord Butler said, referring to what was then Clause 8,
… the variety and scope of the provision must depend on local initiative".—[Official Report, 19th January 1944; Vol. 396, c. 209.]
That was the essence of it. But there was a second crucial aspect: the role of parents in exercising choice and having their say. Ever since then, however, no

Government have established that machinery to give the voice of parents the influence it should have, and now with this Bill the possibility of any such machinery—even the little there has been —will disappear altogether.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: The hon. Gentleman said rightly that no Government had ever established that machinery. Will he tell us his own proposals for that machinery so that the House may judge the views of his party? Although he is speaking from a Back Bench, the hon. Gentleman is the Front Bench spokesman—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, he is not.

Mr. Bryan Davies: He soon will be.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Let the hon. Gentleman give us his proposals so that we may judge what machinery his party would put into legislation, were it ever to return to power.

Dr. Hampson: If I have the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee, the Minister will hear our proposals, because we shall certainly advocate some constructive machinery.
The irony is that in the infamous "Short" Bill of 1970, parents were mentioned. There was to be consultation with governors and managers and with teachers, and there was a throwaway line to the effect that parents would be informed. But in this Bill parents are not mentioned. They are not even to be informed of what will affect them. Why is not the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) complaining about his own Secretary of State for ignoring the teachers? They were involved in the consultation process of 1970, but there is no mention of them in the present Bill.
Plainly, two critical categories are ignored—parents and teachers. All hon. Members must recognise that the quality of education depends not on the structure which we adopt—it is easy to muck about with structures—but on what happens in the classroom and on the quality and nature of the teaching. Yet, as I say, those cardinal aspects of the education process are forgotten, and the parents themselves are being given a particularly shoddy deal under the Bill.
It is easy to misconstrue the nature of one's own time, let alone of the future. We have neither the knowledge nor the imagination to visualise what our future society will be.
Therefore, in planning the provision for the future in educational terms, surely we should plan for uncertainty. That I would define as having a flexible and diversified system, the sort of thing for which Stuart Maclure, the editor of the Times Educational Supplement, argued a year ago when he suggested that we might have a comprehensive system up to the age of 14 and then
permit a rich variety of post-14 solutions both in school and in further education".
He said that schools could specialise in mathematics or language teaching, that there could be technical specialist or academically specialist schools.
The needs of academically able pupils must be considered, particularly in the inner city areas. As hon. Members know, I have always supported the principle of comprehensive education in the sense that I am against the 11-plus—I have always believed that it was too rigid—but one must admit that the comprehensive schools in so many inner city areas do not offer a challenging, sharp academic environment, through no fault of their own. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has just come into the Chamber, was saying herself only yesterday how the constraints of the family, the neighbourhood and background are critical to the quality of students and the nature of the school.
In these ghetto inner city areas, comprehensive schools will have great problems. We have also got the scale of comprehensive schools wrong. There are many difficult aspects to be considered. The theory is fine, but let us get down to the human scale, the reality on the ground, which is what hon. Members opposite so often forget.
We should have flexibility and diversity so that, if there are, in the inner city working-class areas, academically able working-class boys and girls, there will be a way out for them—an escape route, if one likes—into an academic school. That was the great thing that the direct grant schools provided. If Ministers had not been so dogmatic, they would not have forced our best academic schools in

the inner city areas of Manchester, Newcastle, Bradford and Leeds out into the private sector, where only the wealthy can enter them. They could have been incorporated into the system if Ministers had had any flexibility of attitude. By taking this pigheaded approach and driving on relentlessly they are denying the flexibility that I should have thought we wanted for our children's future.
Yet there is a tremendous and ironic illogicality in what the Secretary of State keeps saying. Only a week or so ago, he yet again urged priority for the 16–19year-olds. In the process, he said that we must
change the attitudes of our ablest students,
because he wanted more people to take science, engineering and technical courses.
On 9th January, he said:
I have in mind not just the disadvantaged child
—I think that the Bill refers only to the disadvantaged children unless they do music and dancing—
but some other forms of differentiation and discrimination as well.
So what is this Bill all about? The Bill is in marked contrast to that in 1970. Apart from music and dancing, it allows no discrimination or differentiation at all. In fact, it is so hard and fast in what it says, that the right hon. Gentleman, as he said himself, had to insert a special clause about disadvantaged children or no special schools could have been provided for them.
This is a narrowing and stultifying Bill if ever there was one. On the one hand the Secretary of State acknowledges that the ablest exist and that we need differentiation to help them, while on the other he is killing the chances of local authorities providing it. That is one of the worst features of the Bill, its limitation of diversity, flexibility, openness and initiative.
Let us take a hypothetical situation. It is artificial to fix on the 15–19-yearolds, since attitudes towards the outside world are formed long before 16. I would argue that the ages of 14, 15 and 16—the last two years at school—are all-important. What happens if a local authority decides, breaking new boundaries of structure and planning, that it wants—some are already working towards this—to set up some specialist


schools for those aged 14 to 16? The Bill will put such constraints on them as even to stop them.
At the moment, 13 education authorities run selective sixth form colleges. Will the right hon. Gentleman stop them? These were exempt in the 1970 Bill. Will he now ask them to close the colleges down or to alter their nature? This is the very essence of our approach as against the approach of the Labour Party. We want to see a widening of opportunities and experimentation with the sixth form type of institution or the 14-plus type of institution and we are frightened that the Bill will strangle that sort of initiative and experiment.
That is what the Bill is. It may be an amending Bill, but it is certainly not an improving Bill: it is a strangling Bill. It prevents this country from providing that multi-dimensional educational system which is the only way in which we can effectively prepare our children for the pluralistic society that this country will see in the next century.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Mike Noble: I wish to give a cautious and qualified welcome to the Bill. It is a step in the right direction, towards an opportunity of equality rather than what the Opposition have frequently called for—an equality of opportunity. It will bring a broadening of education opportunities in areas in which reactionary local education authorities have been delaying progress. I hope also that it will help to eliminate the dual standards in secondary education described by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden), in which grammar schools are allowed to exist alongside so-called comprehensive schools. But as a reform, the Bill is limited in scope.
Two main principles are involved in the Bill. The first is the extent to which central Government should interfere in the affairs of local government. One thing that used to distress me, as a local councillor, was the hypocrisy displayed by opposition parties in throwing up their heads in horror whenever the party in government said that it would take a step that would in any way limit the rights, powers and functions of local authorities.
After all, the last Conservative Government limited the functions of many education authorities far more than this Bill will, when they reorganised local government and, by putting them into large county areas, took away the rights of many county boroughs.

Mr. Montgomery: The Labour Party did not vote against it.

Mr. Noble: We did locally, and would continue to do so.
We recall also the interference in local government affairs under the Housing Finance Act and the Education (Milk) Act, under the latter of which local authorities were even prevented by the present Leader of the Opposition from raising a rate, for their own purposes, to spend on milk.
We recall the frequent intervention by the Conservative Secretary of State in the years 1970–74 to prevent local authorities from proceeding with reorganisation plans that had been drawn up and agreed locally. So many of the arguments for not intervening in local government have now gone by the board. In the circumstances of this Bill, the interference projected is fully justified.
The second question is whether the Bill is sufficient to achieve the aims of those who have been pressing for change. The answer is that it will do so only partly. We know that the Bill requires local education authorities to submit schemes in line with the principle that secondary education shall be provided in schools only where there are no arrangements for admission on the basis of selection. We know that the Secretary of State can require proposals on this, but that begs a number of questions.
The first is the kind of schemes of educational reorganisation that will be allowed. For example, I should like to know whether Scheme 3 in Circular 10/65 will be allowed to continue. That scheme was based on guided parental choice. Children went to the secondary school from the age of 11 until the age of 13, and when they reached 13 their parents were given guidance by teachers to determine to which school they would go. Ultimately, in theory, the choice resided with the parent. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, the pressure from


the school authorities meant that the parent had very little choice.
In many cases the 11-plus examination was replaced by a far more stringent form of social selection. It meant the introduction of a grammar school stream into the junior high school and the maintenance of separatism at the age of 13. This type of scheme is one of the reasons why there has been so much criticism of the so-called failures of comprehensive education. I ask my hon. Friend, in the light of the Bill, whether such authorities will have to furnish further schemes.
There are two further weaknesses. First, there is nothing whatever in the Bill about the internal organisation of schools. In my view this is the nub of the issue. The real problem in modern secondary education—a problem that has existed since the reforms of the nineteenth century—is the need to protect the child from the occupational structure of society that the child will face when he or she leaves school. This issue has led to streaming, selection, and the rigid pushing of children, so that round pegs are forced into square holes willy-nilly, depending on the results of a selective examination. It has led to the comprehensive movement, which was, of course, devised to end the labelling and categorisation of children but which, regrettably, has not done so. In my view much of the reorganisation of secondary education has been a massive confidence trick. The old divisions remain within schools. The disadvantaged often remain disadvantaged.
There is a danger that the appearance of change in secondary education—putting new names above old school gates—will make the arrival of a genuine nonselective system that much less likely. If real change is to be introduced in education we need to attach the value systems inside schools and not simply to their structures. That means that in some way influence must be brought to bear inside the schools.
What have we now? I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) has left the Chamber. He used to be head of a school and, indeed, has written a book about it. I think that the school was called Highbury, but in any event it was certainly a London school. He was very proud of it, but

in my view it is a highly efficient meritocracy—nothing more. One sees from the book that it operates at the expense of the less gifted and less able children, because, generally speaking, resources are pushed towards those with greater ability.
As a Socialist I suggest that we should ensure that resources are concentrated on those with less ability. We should not simply pursue the meritocratic idea. The hon. Member for Brent, North condemns the view that schools are vehicles for social engineering. Every school that has been created is a laboratory of social engineering. Every school creates value systems, and the schools which receive most support from Opposition Members—the public schools and schools in the private sector—are the most advanced forms of social engineering in education that this country has ever seen. That is true of all schools, because they create value systems.
Although this reform may take us partly along the way, will my hon. Friends please look at ways and means of assessing the value systems in schools to ensure that what we are trying to replace is not simply lumped inside an old building which is given a new name?
I noted earlier that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned cash—£25 million. Frankly, that is not enough. The first secondary school that I taught in was one of the so-called split-site schools. It is schools of that kind that give comprehensive reorganisation a bad name. We must ensure that if we will the means, we will the end and that we make sufficient capital investment available for these schools to be created.
At present certain authorities are facing particular difficulties. In many cases they are halfway through the process of introducing a new and reorganised system of education. I quote the example of Tameside. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) is present, and knows the details well. Plans have been submitted for reorganisation. They have been approved by the Secretary of State. Public notices have been issued and objections are being considered. Final approval is about to be given and the indicated implementation date is 1st September this year. Moreover, the old selection procedures have


been abandoned and the staff are now in the process of being appointed to posts in the comprehensive schools.
However, in the present climate there remains a substantial degree of uncertainty. It is possible that the plans could, at some stage, be rescinded by the local education authority. That could create educational chaos, cause grave damage to the future of the children involved and generate uncertainty among the staff. Therefore, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend, when she concludes the debate—perhaps, if she cannot answer now, she will write to me—would say whether the Bill can include provisions to ensure that where plans have been approved prior to the Bill becoming law, they will be carried out in those cases where the date has already been indicated by the Secretary of State.
I give the Bill a cautious welcome. We have a long way to go and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the attitudes which prevail within the schools as well as the structure of education.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) will understand that although I accept entirely the sincerity with which he put forward his argument and agree with him in certain respects, there are a number of other matters which, from the point of view of Opposition Members, are controversial. As I recall, the hon. Gentleman asked the extent to which, within the context of the Bill, central Government should interfere with local government. That matter was ably examined in the effective speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).
There are two possible views of the administration of the education service. It can be regarded either merely as one of a number of local government services or, as I prefer, as a national service but locally administered. There are powerful voices in the local authorities who are profoundly anxious about the shift of power represented not only by this Bill but by other aspects of successive Governments' policies.
Much mention has been made of Sheffield. We may take as an example

of what I mean the very powerful speech of Mr. Michael Harrison, the Chief Education Officer for Sheffield, and the incoming President of the Society of Education Officers. To summarise his presidential speech, he warned that education under local government reorganisation is not being well administered and that this could lead to its removal from local government. I firmly wish to see education retained by local government. I adhere firmly to the principle of the balance of power between central and local government. That leads me to look critically at the Bill.
In this we should have the support of the National Union of Teachers. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who has been a regular attender throughout the debate, is temporarily absent from the Chamber. When Mr. Max Morris gave evidence to the Expenditure Committee he delivered himself of a splendid maxim:
The power of the Department of Education increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
If anyone should be on the side of looking critically at the Bill it is Mr. Max Morris. I believe that in the maintenance of this balance—I realise it is not an easy matter—the onus of proof is on the Minister who would shift it.
I believe that broadly it should fulfil three criteria. First, preferably it should be bipartisan. Mention is often made of the 1944 Act in this connection. That Act was a supremely good example of a bipartisan approach. For example, the elementary schools were at least legally abolished by that legislation.
Secondly, it should be capable of precise definition. The school leaving age is an example of what I have in mind. That is capable of absolutely clear and precise definition. However, no one could say that the introductory words to this Bill were capable of precise definition.
Thirdly, it should be demonstrated beyond doubt that this shift to the centre from the circumference is overwhelmingly necessary. Here the roving and bright mind of the returning Minister of State assists us. His speches are nearly always worth reading. However, I thought that he let the cat out of the bag somewhat entertainingly in a recent


speech at a seminar on higher education finance held by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. I commend that speech to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentleman drew extensively on a study by Dame Kathleen 011erenshaw—a name with which to conjure in anything to do with figures; that is, statistical figures—and showed how, because of the way that expenditure was committed on existing schools, only about 4·7 per cent. went on areas which could be influenced by policy. His conclusion was that there was not much room left for differences on party lines. That is true, as anyone who has been inside the portals of the Department knows. The room for manoeuvre by Ministers in the terms of this Bill is minuscule. That is the limitation on Government policy. That is why the Bill is unnecessary.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to a lecture which I gave, I am sure he will accept that I was making two points. The first concerned the distribution of expenditure. I said that very little difference could be made along party lines within a short period. The second point was that, in so far as there was a sharp political difference in the policies advocated by the two major parties, it lay along the comprehensive issue.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes. I noted that. I was about to move to that point, but necessarily shortly.
I wish to put a serious point to the Under-Secretary of State, to which I hope she will reply in her usual courteous way. I want to meet head on the assertion by the Secretary of State that he has made £23 million—I think that is the figure for England—specifically and additionally available for secondary reorganisation. I suggest that there is enough time for her to obtain advice about these figures.
I have great admiration for those who advise education Ministers. They are possibly equalled only by the Treasury as the ablest public servants in the business. However, they are also very skilled in the presentation of figures. One of the difficulties in cracking an argument like this is that necessarily all Oppositions are less equipped than Ministers. The allocation of £23 million is part of a total of £177 million for the whole of the school

building programme. The £23 million represents only 13 per cent. of that capital allocation, and it is at the most expensive end. The allocation covers all types of schools, and we are talking about the most expensive provision.
That is not all. The proportion of secondary school pupils in comprehensive schools, according to a recent speech by the Secretary of State, has now risen to 58·8 per cent. Clearly the £23 million does not apply to them because they are already reorganised. Therefore, it follows that 13 per cent. of the school building programme allocation is allegedly to be made available for 41–2 per cent. of secondary school pupils who are not in reorganised schools. That illustrates the small amount of money which is available and shows conclusively that the Secretary of State has merely taken out that cohort from the money which in any case would have been allocated to 41·2 per cent. of pupils and made the most splendid song and dance about making additional money available.
I do not know whether I have cracked the nut, but I suspect there is a nut there to be cracked if anyone has greater skill than I in getting at it. I hope that I have illustrated sufficiently that additional money is not available in real terms for meaningful secondary reorganisation.
I turn now to party attitudes. Some will remember the words recently written by Lord Alexander of Pottenhill, who is obviously much in our minds tonight in view of his recent bereavement, in Education on 2nd January:
I have always been concerned to avoid the education service becoming a sharp issue of party politics. I fear this Bill will inevitably lead to precisely that situation. That there is quite strong consensus of opinion in favour of the principle of comprehensive schools is not in doubt. What is in grave doubt is whether we have yet established how best to organise schools on the comprehensive principle, and that is a subject which requires very careful examination.
Those are powerful words from a very powerful administrator. Therefore, it is important to establish, as was established so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), that the opposition is opposition to compulsion, not to the comprehensive system as such.
I acknowledge that large numbers of comprehensive schools were established by Tory local authorities without coercion


from the centre under Tory Governments. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough was right to point out, though some of my hon. Friends will not agree, that large numbers of Tory parents deeply resented selection at an early age. I do not think that anyone in this House is absolutely wedded to the principle of selection at the age of 11, except in terms of party propaganda. However, there is still real anxiety on that score among many who work and vote for the Tory Party.
I beg my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), when winding up the debate for the Opposition, to devote a section of his speech to the encouragement of large numbers of Conservative voters who teach in, administer and are parents of pupils in successful comprehensive schools as well as to those with children in schools which have grave problems. Will he make it clear that the next Tory Government, as part of their responsibilities, will want to sustain and particularly to understand the problems of, comprehensive and other schools in difficult areas?
In 1970, on Second Reading of the Education Bill, I quoted a phrase from a textbook on taxation which young lawyer students have to learn:
Dogmatism in taxation is only given to those whose knowledge of the subject is slight."—[Official Report. 12th February 1970; Vol. 795, c. 1570.]
I believe that exactly the same applies to education.
Major questions are still unanswered. What is the smallest viable size of a comprehensive school? What are the social problems of large comprehensive schools? What is proving to be the preferable organisation? Is an 11-to-18 all-through school wise? Are there good grounds for identifying only music and dancing for selection purposes? Is the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) right when he states dogmatically that we cannot have a viable comprehensive system if there is any other type of school in the immediate area?
Dogmatism, when I hear it in matters of education, I suspect is given only to those whose knowledge of the subject is slight. Humility requires us to look with the greatest care and with criticism at this Bill.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: I am more than pleased to speak after the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), with whose fairness and open-mindedness in matters of education the whole House will identify. That, I suppose, is the reason he is sitting on the Opposition Back Benches.
Other speakers have begun their remarks by giving their qualifications for speaking in this debate. Perhaps I may be allowed to give mine. I was one of those—often patronised by Conservative Members—who, at an early age, won a scholarship from what was then the elementary school to the grammar school. I pay tribute to both the elementary school and the grammar school to which I went. If I had got one or two marks less at the 11-plus examination I should probably not have been able to follow my educational career. Subsequently, I went to university and then into teaching. I taught in a secondary modern school, which then became a comprehensive school.
I welcome the Bill because its intention is to provide a universal system of comprehensive schools in the maintained sector.
Another reason for taking part in the debate is that my constituency is part of the borough of Redbridge—one of the recalcitrant seven. I well remember the long fight which I, as a member of that authority had, in trying to persuade the council to adopt a comprehensive system. I am afraid that I was not very successful. With the help of the more moderate Conservative members of the council we managed to get a scheme that provided for a system of comprehensive secondary schools, with the retention of two grammar schools. Even so, the council still persists in sending some 30 boys to the Bancroft's School, which, until recently, was a direct grant school and is now independent. That is in deference to the wild men and women on the Redbridge Borough Council who would very much like to return to the old tripartite system. At a time of financial stringency, when Redbridge Borough Council is cutting education expenditure left, right and centre, it is spending £100,000 each year on providing 30 places per annum in the direct grant schools. At the same time, it


is cutting expenditure in other sectors—in the provision of nursery schools and ESN schools, and in staff.
From listening to Conservative Members it would appear that the Committee stage of the Bill is likely to be protracted and that it may be late in the Session when the Bill becomes an Act. I had hoped that Clause 5 would be operating, because that might have stopped the Redbridge Borough Council in its tracks in terms of this year's entry into independent schools.
Although noises have been made this afternoon, the argument for and against the comprehensive schools is over. There may be those, the troglodytes, who still hark back to the tripartite system, but in the main the idea and the ideal of comprehensive schools is accepted, if only in principle.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that there can be no question of going back to the tripartite system, but there is still a sharp division of opinion between those who want a compulsory and universal system of comprehensive schools and those who believe that there is room, within a predominantly comprehensive system, for a certain number of selective schools. That is the issue.

Mr. Shaw: I was about to deal with that. I just cannot appreciate a system of comprehensive secondary education which contains an element of selection and, therefore, of the grammar school. If the comprehensive school and the grammar school were to exist side by side, the comprehensive school would be regarded as second-best. It would not necessarily be second-best, but it would be so regarded.
I assure hon. Members that the rat race is still on for admission to those grammar schools which still exist in my borough. Many parents are still prepared to spend a lot of money to have their children coached in passing verbal reasoning tests, or the like. I am certain that that is happening in other places where grammar schools still exist.
Those who oppose the Bill also say that a universal system of comprehensive schools does away with the element of choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) pointed out

that that choice has never existed. He said that there is the possibility of the power of the purse being used to buy privileged education, but apart from that the only choice that the child or the parent had depended on a test at 11-plus which was a test of the ability of the child to pass the test at that time. It is also said that the objective of those who support the Bill—the objective of ending in equality cannot be obtained by the establishment of the neighbourhood school. Schools gain reputations that are good or bad according to the social background in which they are situated. It see no real objection to the neighbourhood school. Given the fact that such a comprehensive school is served by a number of primary schools, by the very nature of things there would be some social mix. Even then there is still much to be said for the neighbourhood school—the sort of school on which the parent can look as his own, where, if the parent is sufficiently involved, it can only be good for the school, for the children in the school and for the staff who serve in it.
A school does not have to be a sink because it happens to be situated in a disadavantaged area. So much depends on the inspired leadership of the head teacher and the staff to make something of that school. This has been and is being done, irrespective of the area in which schools are situated. In this matter, too, the Government can do so much. I am aware of the present economic circumstances, but much can be done by putting more resources into those areas where there is social disadvantage.
It has always been a regret to me that more money has not been put into the comprehensive schools. I did not quite follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Wokingham concerning the £25 million. However, I welcome the fact that this money has been put into the kitty, is likely to be taken up, and will be of some help. I can only hope that when the economic clouds roll back and we see again the blue sky, one of the first objectives of the Government will be to put more money into the comprehensive sector, so that we can see the fruition of the objectives of the Bill.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I should like to make what


I hope will be short speech—because I realise that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate—against what I can only call a squalid Bill. I can remember all too well when in 1970 we had the forerunner of this Bill. Its Second Reading was moved by the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the House, and the attack on that occasion was led by my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition. I am delighted to say that on that occasion virtue triumphed, because for various reasons the proposed legislation never reached the statute book. That was because of a misunderstanding in Committee on that Bill.
I had hoped that after that, perhaps the Labour Party would conveniently forget its hatred of the grammar schools and agree that local education authorities and parents should have some say in the type of schools in which their children should be educated. I am afraid, however, that the Labour Party never learns. Here we go again with another proposal to compel all local authorities to submit plans for comprehensive schemes.
My constituency is in the area covered by the borough of Trafford. Trafford is one of the local authorities that has stood out against the blandishments—if that is the right word—of the Secretary of State. In May 1975 we had local elections. In Trafford we have 21 wards. Education was a great issue at those local elections. In Trafford 20 Conservatives were elected, out of 21 wards. I should have thought that that was a fairly good indication of how people in Trafford felt about the system of education that they should have in their area.
However, I am afraid that this Bill is reminiscent of the phrase that we heard all too often between 1945 and 1951 when the Labour Party was in power. The phrase was "The man in Whitehall knows best". I do not believe that the man in Whitehall does know best. I believe that people are much better at deciding the type of education system that they should have in their area. Otherwise, why do we bother to have local education authorities at all?
The attitude on the Government Benches is one of amazing conceit and arrogance. What Labour Members are

saying is that they and they alone know what is right in education, and that anyone else who has a contrary opinion is a fool. The argument being adduced by the Government is that by a complete system of comprehensive schools we shall have some form of equality. That proposition should be very carefully considered.
First, in any comprehensive school we should know how the intake is to be decided. For example, are we to have nothing but neighbourhood schools? As I understand it, the Bill now forbids banding, which is a policy which has been pursued by the ILEA, no doubt to try to achieve a social and an academic mix in schools. However, if we are to have neighbourhood schools—the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) seemed to be very keen on them—we must ask what is the fairness in the type of school that will be attended by a child who lives in a good residential area as compared with that attended by a child who lives in a city ghetto? What equality is there there?
In Wolverhampton there is an excellent comprehensive school known as Tettenhall Regis School. Over the years it has produced first-class results. However, the catchment area, in the days that I knew it, consisted very largely of middle-class families. The children who attended that school came from homes where there were books to read, where there was conversation, and where there were parents who cared very much about the education of their children. If a comprehensive school could not flourish in that area, it could not flourish anywhere. However, because the school had such a good reputation the value of property in its catchment area increased. Houses in other parts of Wolverhampton would be considerably cheaper than comparable houses in the catchment area of that school. This has been a great selling point for estate agents in the Wolverhampton area.
Therefore, the power of the purse, so often condemned by Labour Members, becomes all-important. How does that affect the bright child who comes from a family that has only a small income. The direct grant schools offered opportunity for him, but that gateway has been closed by the Labour Party, and now Labour


Members want to see the complete destruction of good grammar schools that have proved their worth over the years.
One has only to go to the United States to see the differences in neighbourhood schools, the schools in the high-income suburbs that have everything—marvellous buildings and equipment—and schools in the city ghettos which are absolutely deprived. No doubt that is why the United States Supreme Court ruled that there must be a balance between schools. The net result of that is a system of children being bussed from one end of a city to the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) touched on that point. We have all read what has gone on in Boston, where angry parents have protested about the bussing of their children. I cannot honestly believe that that is the sort of situation that hon. Members want to see occurring here.
There is also something rather fraudulent about the Bill, because the aim is to get comprehensive education on the cheap. We shall not have purpose-built schools. What is envisaged is the merging of two schools some distance apart and then saying "Hey, presto! Now you have a comprehensive school"? To join together a downtown secondary modern school with a grammar school, built probably in the 1930s, the buildings will have to be shared. Many children will still have to be taught in the less favoured school buildings. Let us not pretend that everyone in that school will have equal access to the best teachers. It is not Bills and circulars that promote educational progress, nor just changing the name of the school; resources and careful planning are far more important.
I wonder why the Government could not take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and leave things alone for a time so that we could have a full, impartial inquiry into the relative merits and methods of the selective and comprehensive systems. I should have thought that this made good educational sense. Grammar schools are not built up in a year or even a decade. They are built up by devoted staff who build up a tradition of hard academic work and high standards year after year. It is easy

to destroy a school like that overnight but it is a much longer business to build it up. That is why I ask the Minister to give thought to the suggestion that we look at this situation coolly and objectively, instead of going ahead with his plans to destroy good schools.
The Education Act 1944 aimed at the concept of a partnership between the local education authorities and the Government. No doubt the Government will maintain that that is still what they believe in, but what the Bill is trying to do is to say that one partner should be more dominant than the other. That cannot be a good thing. I have always believed that the Secretary of State should have reserve powers and the right to try to persuade, but there is one thing he has not the right to do: he has not and should not have the right to compel a local authority to submit a proposal for secondary reorganisation involving existing schools in which that authority does not itself believe.
I cannot help thinking that what we should be debating today is not the imposition of comprehensive schools throughout the country but the quality of education in existing schools. I do not think that parents care particularly what a school is called. What they are anxious about is whether their children are being taught properly—whether they are being taught to read, to write, and to do arithmetic. They are also concerned about the decline of discipline in our schools.
We read recently of trouble in a comprehensive school in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I know the area very well. A few years ago there were a boys' grammar school and a girls' grammar school there. They were merged to form a new comprehensive school. The headmaster of the school was the man who had been the head of the boys' grammar school. That man has earned the respect and admiration of many people in the Newcastle area. He recently found himself in a difficult position, because some of the women on his staff felt that certain unruly girls in the school should have some form of corporal punishment. In Newcastle the system of corporal punishment adopted is to be hit across the hand with a leather strap. The headmaster decided to implement that policy.


There was a riot in the school. That received great publicity.
I was astounded to read a report of the Secretary of State saying that the headmaster must have taken leave of his senses.

Mr. Mulley: I said no such thing. I held a Press conference at which a large number of journalists were present. Had I said such a thing, is it conceivable that the report would have appeared in only one newspaper when such a large number was represented at the Press conference? I repeat that these matters are primarily for the local education authority and the teachers concerned.

Mr. Montgomery: I am sorry that it was not made perfectly clear, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will admit that some newspapers reported him as having uttered that phrase.

Mr. Mulley: In defence, let me say that I quickly learned that if one were to spend one's time denying every inaccuracy about one's Department that appeared in the Press one would have that as a full-time occupation. Further, if by some inadvertence one were to forget to deny one inaccuracy it would then be taken to be true. Therefore, I do not take up every reference to myself that appears in the Press.

Mr. Montgomery: I am glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says.
There is a complete lack of understanding on the part of some people of the difficulties many teachers have to face from an unruly minority of children. This is a cause of concern for many parents. That is why I think that our time today could have been better spent trying to find ways of improving the situation in our classrooms instead of getting on with this nasty little Bill.
The Government must realise that if one takes a big stick to people, if one threatens them and demands 100 per cent. of what one believes to be right, one hardens the position. That is common human experience. It makes it more difficult to get a sensible solution of what should be an issue of practical educational administration, and turns it into a hotly contested arena of political controversy. It then becomes the responsibility of the Government if they proceed

with the Bill. In that way they are preventing a compromise and conciliation. They are hardening the lines and, in the process, they are doing real damage to education.
I can only express the hope that history will repeat itself, that we shall have a General Election in the not-too-distant future and that that General Election will ensure that the Bill does not go through Committee and that this time it will be buried once and for all.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Davies: It is a signal advantage to catch the eye of the Chair so late in a debate. It enables an hon. Member to reflect on the contributions which have already been made to the debate and also to reflect on his own position.
I approached the debate and the Bill with some sadness. The great problem about the Bill is that it is concerned with issues that should have bean settled some time ago. The major arguments have been chewed over for more than 20 years in public debate and in the Chamber. I regret that some of the contributions which have been made today have gone over so much old ground.
I also approached the debate with some reservation when I appreciated that of the two Front Bench spokesmen for the Opposition one would be an advocate and would quote liberally from Bagehot and another an aficionado of Richard Cobden and that they would both present their views overwhelming within the context of the nineteenth century. Surely we are concerned with education in relation to contemporary society. We must concern ourselves with the issues which face educationalists in the third and fourth quarters of the twentieth century.
The Bill has not been brought forward with undue haste. It is the result of a long drawn out debate. The element of compulsion which some hon. Members have suggested is new has a long heritage. Do hon. Members opposite remember the extent to which the 1944 Act abolished one sector of our education, namely, elementary schools, and clearly established a different framework of schools and school structure within our society? So in introducing the Bill my right hon. Friend is merely following the outlines of the 1944 Act.
What is being changed is the central definition of schools, but that, as I have already emphasised, is on the basis of widespread debate throughout society and is not necessarily a principle that hon. Members opposite would wish to oppose as such. They recognise that many local authorities under the control of their own party have been prepared to introduce comprehensive education.
For those reasons, my right hon. Friend need not worry about defending the commitment in the first part of the Bill to a central definition, a national definition, of the structure of schools. What is more, in defining schools he is reflecting a widespread recognition that academic selection at the age of 11 proved fallible and was unacceptable to the people as a social selector.
My worry about the Bill is that the debate on the comprehensive question has been defined in all too negative terms. The argument has been in terms of the 11-plus and the necessity for its abolition. Hon. Members opposite and others who are concerned about these issues rightly call for a greater definition of the nature of comprehensive schools. I plead for a recognition on the Tory benches that the national imposition of comprehensive schemes is not a suppression of diversity. It is certainly the suppression of selection at 11-plus, but it is that on good grounds.
A myriad of schemes has come forward from local authorities—sixth form colleges, middle schools, the 11-to-18 all-through schools in some areas. That diversity of pattern which we already have is not threatened by the Bill.
We must recognise that, although schools cannot be complete moulders of society as some theorists have advocated, as if in some way social change can be brought about simply by the mechanism of educational change, nevertheless schools clearly have an important part to play in the transition of values. They certainly provide trained manpower and the qualities and qualifications which individuals need to make a contribution to society.
We must recognise that there are substantial callenges to the two positions adopted by hon. Members opposite. Indeed, the positions themselves are in substantial conflict. First, they seem con-

cerned—and we have had echoes of this in the debate—that selection in secondary schools, particularly if there is a fee-paying element attached, is under threat from this Bill. Clearly it is, and I welcome the part of the Bill which seeks to reduce the capacity of local authorities, without first submitting their position to the Secretary of State, to take up places at independent schools. When they defend that system of education, hon. Members opposite should recognise that they are defending something which is quite different from their attitude towards State education.
The argument of the Opposition on State education is that the academic element is at issue. When they talk of preserving grammar schools, they are concerned with producing an intellectual elite—the triumph of the meritocracy. But the Conservatives have another dimention to this position. It has an honourable tradition, going back I imagine to the days of Disraeli, of concern for something other than rule of the meritocracy. They are concerned with the concept of one nation. It is on this basis, one presumes, that they first postulate their defence of independent schools where, clearly, academic criteria are not the only measure of efficiency. They are prepared to defend this structure where intellectual merit is not the sole criterion, whereas, within the framework of the State system, the defence of the grammar schools is solely in these terms. Both these postulates—the creation of intellectual or social elites—are under challenge in our society.
We should recognise the nature of this fundamental challenge. Our society has been facing a situation of considerable economic decline over the last 30 or 40 years. We have lost an Empire and still not found a role. A whole range of ideas in public policy are under challenge. It would be surprising if, in these circumstances, very sharp questions were not postulated about our education system.
The kind of question we ought to be considering is whether our past position of producing a social elite from the privileged private sector or an intellectual elite through direct grant or grammar schools in the public sector has not left us with problems which have helped and contributed to the present discontent in


society. In considering the problems confronting us as an economic society, we can see that too much talent has been directed down narrow academic channels. We have been too little concerned with the development of talents of a different kind. In particular, we have over-committed our resources to the favoured few in the public sector—the grammar schools—and committed too few resources to those who have displayed abilities of another kind.
Within our society the claim is made, not just by supporters of the Labour Party, that in the development of our industrial and economic life we are lacking in trained manpower. Too many people have followed the all too traditional rôle of going to grammar schools, into the sixth form, on to university and then into the public service or teaching. It is claimed that the grammar school ethos has directed too little of the talents and abilities of young people into the industrial and manufacturing part of our economy where they are desperately needed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to bring in a Bill which emphasises the necessity of a national definition of comprehensive education. I would be appalled if the development of comprehensive education did not provide significant opportunities for academically able children to do well. Despite the fact that, in most education authorities, there is still a system of creaming-off to direct grant or grammar schools, the comprehensive schools still manage to send a fair proportion of their children to university. It is important to provide opportunities for the educationally qualified, but comprehensive schools will provide a service to our society, at least as necessary, if they promote concern for the development of children whose abilities and attributes go beyond the narrowly academic.
At comprehensive schools there should be no rigid selection and rigid definition of failure at an early stage. In the early years, they should have a general common course for children to follow.
Moving on from the general issue of the values underpinning the element of compulsion in the introduction of comprehensive education, I should like to consider the two parts of the Bill con-

cerned with the rôle of the voluntary schools and the position of local authorities taking up fee-paying places in independent schools.
The Opposition argue that diversity can be maintained in our education system only if maintained schools have both grammar and direct grant possibilities as well as comprehensive education. They must recognise that where a local authority introduces a comprehensive pattern in which a substantial number of places are taken up at independent and voluntary-aided schools, the comprehensive schools' position is gravely weakened. It is no help to the development of comprehensive education and the confidence of parents in the development of the State education system if local authority representatives are continually arguing that they require a certain number of places at fee-paying schools for their more gifted children. This would be less ridiculous but for the fact that it is imagined that all pupils at independent schools are gifted. In fact, they are the children of parents who can afford to pay the fees.
Again we have this mixture of one set of criteria for the vast majority of children and a separate set for the privileged sector. Members of the Opposition should recognise that when my hon. Friends and I express ourselves with a degree of passion and concern on these issues, they stand under a charge themselves. It was reflected in the columns of the Sun newspaper, which I have never looked upon as a major sociological treatise in this country. A very high proportion of hon. Members opposite are products of the privileged sector and they send their children to that sector as well.
The situation still exists in which the BBC News is read by the person educated at a public school and the weather forecast is read by the person from the grammar school. The emphasis in many positions is still upon social quality and not upon academic or intellectual ability. While that persists, the Conservatives cannot challenge us over the issue of equality of opportunity.
Education has its limits in bringing about change in the move towards a fairer society. Even this limited contribution is prejudiced while such situations still persist.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Before he left the Chair Mr. Speaker told me that he had made two appeals for brevity and that there would be no need for me to make such an appeal. I respect his wishes. It only remains for me to indicate that the winding-up speeches will begin at 9 o'clock and that 15 hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I shall be brief and therefore not take up the points raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies). My brevity, however, in no way reduces the strength of my objection to the Bill. In spite of the modest tones in which the Minister presented it, it is in many ways a dangerous Bill, because it risks causing permanent and irreparable damage to our society through a reduction in standards of education.
In this debate we are not concerned with the principle of comprehensive education. There are good comprehensive schools. I have a comprehensive school in my constituency. We know that 68 per cent. of pupils undergoing secondary education attend comprehensive schools. There is at present, however, a flood of opinion flowing from research carried out on the effectiveness or otherwise of comprehensive schools compared with other schools. I concede that the evidence is conflicting. I believe that it tends to show that a reduction in standards is taking place, but even if I am wrong the conflict clearly exists. So long as that is so, there cannot possibly be justification for forcing the whole country to return to a system of compresensive education against the wishes of the local authorities and the parents. There is no justification for breaking up good established schools in pursuit of unproven political and educational theory.
One of the basic problems of comprehensive schools is their size. Either they are too big, in which case they carry that terrible present-day malaise of impersonality into the classroom, or they are so small that streaming often cannot be carried out. That leads to mixed ability classes, which, on the whole, produce lower standards. The hon. Member for

Enfield, North said that he favoured the comprehensive system because it avoided social division. I believe that the neighbourhood comprehensive, which is what the Bill creates, is in many ways socially far more divisive than the system that it seeks to replace.
I know that the Under-Secretary cares very much about this subject and is genuine in her beliefs. Can she not see that when the Bill is combined with the Government's approach to the abolition of the direct-grant school it is the bright pupil in the deprived area who will be hit hardest? It seems extraordinary that a Labour Government and Socialist philosophy should seek to remove from that child the opportunity of lifting himself out of that deprived area and possibly enjoying the education at, say, the Manchester Grammar School or another good grammar school.
I turn briefly to the effect of the Bill upon my constituency. At the moment the Cheshire County Council, clearly in the belief and on the advice that the Government's views leave it no alternative, is considering turning every good existing grammar and secondary modern school into a comprehensive. It is doing it against the wish of the people. In one area of my constituency the people have raised a petition, with 4,002 names, against a Section 13 order. I am told that 80 per cent. of those whom they approach willingly sign that petition. It has not been worked out who is to pay the cost of that reorganisation.
I apologise if I misunderstood an answer by the Under-Secretary yesterday. I believed that the Government were putting up a fund to the tune of £25 million to help with the reorganisation. My mistake was shared by many other hon. Members on both sides—a mistake that was largely encouraged by the terms of Written Answers about the division of funds.
I believe that the Government have their priorities wrong. It is tragic that at a time when local authorities such as the county council in my area are being forced to pare down their educational spending they should be required to undertake loan sanction of £500,000 to cover expenditure resulting from the ideological and political views of the Labour Party.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: As a former pupil at a public school and a former teacher, I am strongly committed to the principle of comprehensive schools as firmly enshrined in Clause 1. I do not want the abolition of public schools, grammar schools or direct grant schools. I want to transform them into something bigger and better, something better able to serve society.
I must warn my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to be on her guard against insidious attempts to infiltrate the grammar school principle through the back door once we have turned it out of the front door. There is a proposal to move Parmiter's School from Tower Hamlets, Bethnal Green, to Watford. It is a three-form voluntary-aided boys' grammar school. The Inner London Education Authority has over the years been trying to persuade the school to conform to the existing pattern of London education, but without success. Parmiter's is obstinate, so ILEA has given it its walking papers and told it to be out by 1977.
Parmiter's has been sniffing around to find somewhere to "maintain the traditions" of the school. It has recently lit on Watford, where there is a seven-form entry mixed comprehensive school called Francis Combe. The county officials are playing ball. The idea is that Francis Combe—which has an upper and a lower school built on either side of the playing fields—will be split to provide two five-form entry schools, one on the site of the lower school and one on the site of the upper school, buildings being added to the upper school. The schools will thus be on the same site, separated only by the playing fields and—what is most undesirable—serving the same catchment area.
Parmiter's will sell its existing buildings to the ILEA, ask the Department for a grant, buy Francis Combe school from Hertfordshire County Council and pay for the building of the new classrooms and the maintenance of the buildings. The ILEA is glad to pay Parmiter's to get out. Hertfordshire County Council will get extra places without paying for them and will also receive money from selling a building which is not surplus to its requirements. Very nice, financially, for the county council, which will be able to save between £80,000 and £90,000 a year on loan charges.
However, educationally the scheme will be disastrous. The parents, governors, headmaster and staff of Francis Combe school, Langleybury school and adjacent schools are vehemently opposed to it, as is the Educational Advisory Committee and the National Union of Teachers. I am informed that the County Education Committee has also come out against it.
All these people saw the effect which the continuing existence of the boys' and girls' grammar school in West Watford had on the local comprehensive schools, and they do not want that experience to be repeated in their area. For a long time they have fought for Section 13 notices for the grammar schools, for which I pestered my hon. Friend many times. Having achieved the Section 13 notices, they feel that this scheme is a back-door device to bring back the grammar school by allowing the ILEA to export its educational problem to Hertfordshire. It will inevitably result in a creaming off of the brilliant students because it will draw pupils from the same catchment area as will the three neighbouring schools. Parmiter's—a voluntary aided school—has superior facilities and. therefore, more parents will opt to send their children to Parmiter's than can be accommodated therein.
Officially, the school will have an all-ability intake, but the decision as to which pupils the school will take will rest with the headmaster, and if there are more applicants than he can take he will naturally choose the bright ones. Students in other schools will suffer because there will be smaller sixth forms and it will be impossible to run some courses because there will not be enough students to make them viable. In fine, having thrown off the burden of creaming off, Watford will be saddled with it for a second time. I urge my hon. Friend to resist this attempt to reimpose the grammar school system on my constituency.

8.33 p.m.

Sir John Hall: Remembering the power of your rebukes on previous occasions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall endeavour to obey your request to be brief and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck).
I find this a depressing Bill and the debate is also depressing, except for the contributions made by my hon. Friends. It is a depressing Bill because it makes no contribution towards the problems that face our schools. It is depressing because it seeks to impose a particular system of schooling on the nation as a whole, and the Government have forgotten the distinction between schooling and education. It is depressing because excellence in education where it now exists is to be sacrificed for the sake of an educational concept which is being seriously questioned both at home and abroad. It is depressing because local authorities, who are to be put under considerable pressure to reduce local expenditure, will find it impossible to implement the Bill effectively without increased cost and effort which would be better devoted to solving the problems of the jungle schools, the indiscipline in schools and the failure of so many children to reach accepted standards of literacy.
I find the Bill alarming because it is another example of the increasing concentration of power in the centre—of which all Governments have been guilty to a greater or lesser extent—and because it overrides local needs and local choice. I thought that the great four-day devolution debate was concerned with that.
I have little doubt that the Government's determination to force all local education authorities to toe the line by persuasion, financial pressure, and finally the threat to introduce this legislation, has defeated many authorities. Many authorities will have taken the view "What is the use of fighting? The Government are bound to win in the end. Let us give up now and do the best we can with a heavy heart." Many of them have decided to follow the Government line.
Buckinghamshire, as might be expected, being the county of John Hampden, has refused to bow to pressure. It is a county which has never accepted very readily the view of monarchy or Parliament. The people of Bucks have met throughout the county. In letters to their county councillors and their Members of Parliament they have made it crystal clear that the overwhelming majority wish to maintain their present excellent and varied schools.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: We shall soon have a Bucks National Party.

Sir John Hall: They do not want outstanding schools of known educational excellence to be destroyed in favour of an amalgam of schools that are called comprehensive, the value of which has still to be proven.
My opposition to the Bill is not based on any dislike of comprehensive schools. In Bucks, as the Under-Secretary of State will know, there are four comprehensives in the north of the county. They are located in areas in which it cannot be said that the cream of the available students finds its way to grammar schools. Students in the areas of the four comprehensives have to go a long way to get into a grammer school. My county had a comprehensive in Slough—before that area, unfortunately, was taken from us in the local government reorganisation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know to which school the hon. Gentleman is referring. If it is the Warrenfield School, that was never a comprehensive. There was merely a change of name.

Sir John Hall: I was referring to schools in Newport Pagnell and Wolverton.

Miss Lestor: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring to Slough.

Sir John Hall: No. I was dealing with the position in my constituency. I quote a paragraph from a letter written by the Wycombe Parents' Association, which reads:
Reorganisation along comprehensive lines would do away with many good secondary modern schools as well as many grammar schools. Schools in both these categories have excellent records in developing to the full the particular abilities of individual children according to their needs and there is no evidence that a comprehensive system would do this better.
That is the view of the Association, and in my constituency that is absolutely true. We have many good secondary schools which educate their pupils to O-level standard, schools which try to ensure that the late developer who will benefit from further education is transferred to a grammar or high school at


the appropriate time. They undertake that transfer most effectively. They bring out in their pupils many of the qualities which are often present in those who are not necessarily academically gifted. I believe that we place too much stress on academic qualities without realising the many other skills which should be developed.
On 24th November the Secretary of State said:
…over the country as a whole the great majority of parents have utterly rejected the divisive system of selection that imposes a sense of failure on the majority of our children."—[Official Report, 24th November 1975 Vol. 901, c. 520.]
Presumably that is the basis of the Government's support for comprehensive schooling. But let me make it plain that the majority of parents in my constituency do not share that view. With few exceptions, the parents who consult me about the entry of their children to secondary schools after going through the primary stage are mainly concerned about getting them out of a neighbourhood school. They do not complain that their child has not reached a grammar or high school. They are concerned in many cases that their child has to go to a certain neighbourhood secondary school. Unfortunately we have one or two problem schools in my constituency. Very often parents want their child to go to another secondary school. Many such schools in my constituency enjoy high reputations. If we had comprehensive education there would be no question of getting out of neighbourhood schools. They would be there and people would be stuck with them.
In the county there are some very fine grammar and high schools, including the Royal Latin School in the north and the Aylesbury Grammar School, near my own home, and many others.
In my constituency, apart from two very good girls' high schools, we have two grammar schools—the Royal Wycombe Grammar School and the Sir William Borlase School in Marlow. They were both founded more than 400 years ago, and they share one other thing in common.
When Sir William Borlase School was taken over by the State in September 1910, it was clearly agreed—and was recorded at the time—that the then Board

of Education and the Bucks County Council guaranteed that there would be no radical change in the nature of the school.
Exactly the same promise was made to the Royal Wycombe Grammar School when that was taken over and became a voluntary controlled school. That promise, quite clearly, was a major influence in the decision of those schools to enter the State system. The Bucks County Council has been trying to keep that promise. It falls to the Secretary of State to break the promise given by his predecessor.
The case for resisting the Bill, as it applies to Buckinghamshire, rests not on promises made but on the educational advantage of the present variety and educational excellence of the schools we now have, as against the unavoidable disruption which would be caused by the introduction of a total comprehensive system throughout the county. It rests on the knowledge that there are fashions in education—the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) referred to this—as there are in most things. The play and plasticine method of teaching in primary schools is subject to some criticism at the present moment, and the Secretary of State has had to draw attention to the importance of learning the three Rs adequately.
Previous dogmatic assertions about the size of comprehensive schools are now open to debate. There are debates on whether to stream or not to stream, and on whether there should be all-ability classes. Are there sufficient teachers of the right calibre to teach in all-ability classes? Not many teachers—and we have many good ones—can adequately and efficiently teach in all-ability classes. If there are not enough teachers of that kind, what will happen to the very dull child, or to the very bright child? Frequently it is the very bright child who is neglected and not recognised, certainly in the earlier stages of educational development.
Parents are worried about reports that, instead of broadening the opportunities open to pupils, the subjects available for sixth form study have been reduced rather than expanded. Parents are concerned, as the Under-Secretary of State will know, at disturbing reports about both falling academic standards and


poor social behaviour at some comprehensive schools.
It is a little unfair, perhaps, to make a judgment about comprehensives at this stage. They have not been going quite long enough for us to be sure of the results they will achieve. It is true that they have not figured very largely in The Times league table of success in the Oxford and Cambridge University entrance examination, but it is perhaps unfair to judge at the moment.
If experience proves the Government wrong—if this is just a fashion, as I mentioned earlier, and if time shows that comprehensive schools do not provide the opportunities and advantages which their adherents claim—what then? Ancient schools with fine traditions and excellent academic records, like those in my constituency, will have been destroyed, and they cannot be resurrected.
I would not venture to speak for my hon. Friends who are Members for the other Buckinghamshire constituencies, but I believe they would agree that the people of Buckinghamshire do not wish to deny to any other local education authorities the right to have the system of education best suited to the needs of the children in their own areas. We in Bucks, with a record of willingness to experiment in education, wish only to retain the system which we have found best suited to the needs of our children and which the great majority of our people in the county wish to retain.
For this reason, although we shall accept the Bill if it becomes law—we are very law-abiding people in Buckinghamshire—we shall fight it to the end.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. John Watkinson: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall) will not be surprised if, unlike him, I do not find this Bill an occasion for depression. I welcome the Bill because it states, clearly and categorically, a principle for which the Labour Party has stood for many years, namely, the introduction of comprehensive education. The essence of this approach is that it means that a stance has been taken publicly once and for all against the principle of selection.
I was brought up in a city that has been the centre of a great deal of debate on this matter. In Bristol we had a system of public school education, grammar school education, and secondary modern education. I well recall the effect and consequences of the 11-plus examination in the city of Bristol—the effect that it had upon families and upon parents desperate that their children should pass into Bristol's grammar schools. I also remember the devastating effects that selection at 11-plus had upon the children of Bristol.
I notice that the Opposition are very concerned about the effects of our education system upon parents. But what about the children? What is the effect upon them of selection at 11-plus? What is the effect when they are regarded as failures at that age? I think that we have to face the consequences of the perpetuation of this system upon the social fabric of our society. Whether we agree that the education system has produced the divisions in our society, at least it has to be acknowledged that it has cemented those divisions and to a great extent accentuated them.
I find attitudes of Opposition Members to this debate on education somewhat difficult to follow. As I understand it, they believe in a competitive society, yet they send their children to public schools. I am not arguing the merits of the standard of education that is produced at public schools; it could well be argued that the standard of education produced there is of the highest order. But to say that there is competition to get into these schools is a gross distortion of reality. In the first place, entrance to such schools is governed by money. In the second place, there is a common entrance examination, but I am told by prep school headmasters that it is easy to get a child into any one of the leading public schools at present.
I suggest that the Opposition want a selective, competitive system for the rest of society but want to provide for themselves a system that removes that competition. It seems to me that under that system advantages accrue which enable the products of the system to start in life well ahead of children in the rest of


society. This is the philosophical attitude that the Opposition adopt. They say that we should have competition in the rest of society, but they do not want it in that area of the education system which they themselves use.
I pass on to the question of comprehensive schools. We have to acknowledge that there are genuine criticisms, and they have been put cogently by Opposition Members. There are problems about the neighbourhood comprehensive and the difficulties that accrue there. Again, I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that I went to a grammar school in Bristol. The children in Bristol's grammar schools bussed across the city. There was bussing all over Bristol. There is no reason why, if that system was not good enough for children who went to grammar schools, it should be good enough for the children who go to comprehensive schools.
There is a serious argument about the problem of size. We need to investigate and study the implications of the size of our comprehensive schools; but one objection that I find insupportable is the argument that comprehensive schools are a massive, grey mediocrity, and that they are identical models of educational incompetence. I object to that because, on going round my constituency, it seems to me that there is a tremendous variety of education and educational opportunity within those schools.
We have to face the fact that standards in our schools have to be examined, but at the same time we must beware of placing at the door of comprehensive schools the faults that would have existed whether or not we had these schools. Truancy existed before comprehensive schools came in; it exists now. What is more, it will continue to exist. We have to face that problem, but we must realise that it does not arise from the fact that these schools are comprehensive.
The Bill sets out the principle that we seek to end the inequalities of selection at 11-plus. We cannot tolerate such a system. The Bill will encourage and promote the cause of equality, and for that reason it has my warm support.

8.52 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I thank the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) for making

such a brief speech, because it gives me time to make a few points.
My first point is that what parents are basically worried about in our schools is falling standards, both of learning and of conduct. That is why, in increasing numbers throughout the country, they will revolt against legislation such as is proposed tonight. That is why there will be a mass of signatures to the petition that one hears is going round the country against the provisions of the Bill.
The parents' judgment is reinforced by reports such as that of the Bullock Committee, which the Government have not had the guts to debate. It is reinforced by the alarm bells ringing throughout the media, and especially the educational Press. I invite the House to listen to what one education authority has said. I quote the Director of the Oxford University Department of Educational Studies, Dr. Harry Judge:
It is idle to pretend that there survives, in secondary schools, in colleges and departments of education, in local education authorities, even in the hearts of bruised sociologists, any powerful conviction that the present phase of comprehensive planning will bring great educational improvements, or even be worth doing at all.
It is falling standards that have caused the main anxiety of parents over the choice of school for their children. It has sharpened their anxiety often to the point of desperation. It is the kind of desperation which, in extreme cases, leads them to uproot their families from among their friends, sell their houses and move to the catchment area of a school which will, in their judgment at least, better meet the needs of their family.
This anxiety has been well shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in his analysis of parents' rejection of the sort of uniform pattern that this Government are trying to impose upon them. But the anxiety of parents is being shrugged off by the Secretary of State and his Government.
The Government have their priorities dead wrong. They are spending money on dislocating schools that work well when they should be using every penny to improve the existing primary and secondary schools and those schools that are most in need of improvement. The Secretary of State has taken no note of the growing disillusionment with the overall


pattern of comprehensive education. It is the imposed universality to which people object. They do not reject the good comprehensive schools. All of us rejoice in them.
There is disillusion with the comprehensive pattern even within the Soviet orbit. There is disillusion in America: the Secretary of State will, no doubt, have had drawn to his attention two recent reports—of January 1976—from the Texas area showing how comprehensive schools there were falling in standards. There is growing disillusion in this country also about the standards of comprehensive schools. I shall not quote Lord Alexander to the right hon. Gentleman, because he should know that passage already.
What should the Secretary of State be doing now? He should focus all the brains, effort and money within the education system on improving standards in our existing maintained secondary and primary schools. The restoration and development of standards will take time, but it must start immediately or it will take even longer. The right hon. Gentleman should set in train immediately a basic inquiry into the whole maintained sector, with special reference to the standards of learning and conduct. This should include the size of secondary schools, teacher training and parental involvement in the guidance and support of schools.
In the meantime, I pray that the Secretary of State will stop harassing selective schools that are meeting the real needs of many young and of their parents. He would, I believe, have widespread support throughout the country in establishing such an enquiry because he would have listened to what parents are saying and would have recognised their deep anxieties for their children. If he and his Government press ahead with the measures set out in the Bill, and in other recent measures tending in the same direction, he will do lasting damage to our education system, he will reduce parental choice, and he will, by hindering selective schools, reduce the intellectual drive in the country at a time when this quality is vitally needed for our survival. I suspect that the only good that the Secretary of State will do by pressing this Bill is

to contribute to the rejection of his Government at the next General Election.

8.59 p.m.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: Two matters arise on Clause 1. The first is the effect of recruiting pupils without any reference to ability or aptitude in an attempt, such as is made in our cities, particularly London, to have balanced comprehensives around an area. This is something that the Inner London Education Authority tried to do because its early research showed that certain areas had proportionately six times as many children in the higher ability groups as others.
If cities had only neighbourhood comprehensive schools, the schools in socially and academically good areas would be grammar schools with CSE streams, while in the poorer areas they would be just large secondary modern schools with a few pupils sitting GCE and CSE. I am sure that it was never the intention behind the Bill to put at risk the attempt to balance intake. If that happens, we shall have neighbourhood ghetto schools in our cities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) said, the opportunities of the bright child from the deprived home will obviously be less than they were under the bipartite system.
Banding was an attempt to overcome that problem. Without banding, what shall we do? Shall we have a word with Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon to see whether we can establish direction of teacher labour? The problem will not be solved by pouring in money. That has been done in city centres for years, with little result.
On the question of bussing, when parents are voluntarily prepared for their children to travel, as once was the case, that is not bussing but a free decision of parents about where they send their children. Bussing means taking children up as conscripts from every third or fifth house in the morning, taking them to other areas and bringing them back in the evening. If we are to have a balance in city areas, that is the sort of threat that we shall face.
I have here a letter passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) from the Association of


Disabled Professionals, who are very worried about the provision in the clause for separate schools for pupils suffering from disability of mind or body. There has been a long movement towards involving children with such disabilities in normal schools so that they can later fit into normal society. We must be careful that that welcome trend is not halted. I know that it is probably not the Secretary of State's intention, but the clause will have to be amended if it is not to happen.
Turning to voluntary aided schools, when Church schools have existed next to the church they have been part of the community. If now they have to become comprehensive schools, there will be no room for them to expand. They will have to move to other areas, and that close link between church and school which is part of the roots of many of our towns will be destroyed. That is seriously wrong and I hope that it does not happen.
The most amazing feature of the Bill is that it contains no mention of parents and parental choice. Parents and children are considered as pieces on a chess board to be pushed around by the mandarins of our present society. This Government use such phrases as "participation" and "worker democracy". But we see the reality in the Bill. They are just phrases to be used between elections. People are pushed around after the elections have been won.
Labour Members say that the choice was limited. It was. Only 20 per cent. of children went to grammar school. It may have been even less in some areas. But at least at that time there was some choice. One does not argue about choice, as some Labour Members do, and then destroy it all. If they had turned their minds not to re-running the debate that they have conducted for 15 years, with the same old weary phrases, but to discussing what we can do about increasing choice and producing a maturer and freer society, they would have won much more respect from this side of the House.
The Plowden Report was published some years ago and made the specific point that next to the academic ability of the pupil the most important factor was the involvement of the parents and the family. We shall never get involve-

ment if we simply direct children to neighbourhood schools. The decision must be made by those parents who have committed themselves to a certain school. The more people who take part, the more involvement we have and the higher the standard of our schools. There is no mention of that from beginning to end of the Bill.
My fourth detailed point concerns ballet and music. How was the decision made? Obviously the Government have introduced this because they have a guilt complex. Did it grow from the school curriculum? Was it an attempt to identify subjects not linked with intelligence? If so, those of us who were no good at languages would suggest that languages should also be exempted. Should it also apply to sport? These subjects are accidental gifts which are given to us. Languages and music involve speech and hearing, ballet involves the movement of the body.
I have been concerned with the education of boys for over 23 years. In almost every case there was a link between music, chess and mathematics. Therefore, if a mathematical family want their child to be brought up with a leaning towards mathematics they should give him a tin whistle while he is in the perambulator. Their only chance is to get him trained in music and the flute. If we get all these children into the same school—a music school—we shall save the mathematical standards of this country as the seed corn for the future.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall) and Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) said that the Bill is irrelevant in many ways to our present education problems. I am referring to teaching in the infant schools and the ability of children to read. I appreciate that 80 per cent. of our schools are better than ever before. I am not making a blanket condemnation. However, any Labour Member who has the ability to read—I hope that literacy abounds in the House—will know that there is great concern among thousands of working-class parents that their children are not taught to read in certain schools, that they play at school, and that reading has to be taught at home. Therefore, the first major area of concern is literacy in the infant schools. If hon. Members do not realise that there


are problems, there is nothing more that I can do. I am trying to help with my normal generosity of temper.
The second area of concern is the non-structured primary schools. In this respect the irrelevance of the Bill is clear. I have received three messages asking me to telephone the Press. I have not done so, but I have found out what those calls were about. The education correspondents have contacted me not about the debate today but about the William Tyndale School. It has been discovered that at one stage a teacher sent three letters to me and the education correspondents want my comments on the William Tyndale School, not on the Bill. If that does not show the great waste of time that has taken place during the preparation of the Bill, I do not know what does.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for mentioning my notorious William Tyndale School. The far-too-long-drawn-out investigation of the William Tyndale School will come to a close in a few days' time. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the parents of the children at that school are absolutely appalled at the possibility that the teachers who have been examined during the investigation may be allowed by the Inner London Education Authority to return during the interim period between the end of the investigation and the time when the Inner London Education Authority takes decisions about the results of the investigation? I hope that all hon. Members will oppose any attempt to allow those teachers to return to the school during the interim period.

Dr. Boyson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I completely agree with what he said. It was a feed school for Highbury Grove, which is in his constituency. It would be a disaster if those teachers returned before a decision was made, and it would upset all the parents. The hon. Gentleman's intervention indicates the concern which is felt throughout the length and breadth of the country.
There is the question of teacher quality and getting a suitable curriculum, which we do not have at the moment, for less academically inclined children between

the ages of 11 and 16 years. That is a major problem.
Another problem is to make comprehensive schools work in areas where they are not working at the moment. There are many good comprehensive schools throughout the length and breadth of this country.

Mr. John Ellis: We thank the hon. Gentleman very much.

Dr. Boyson: There are a number. I was the head of one. I was the head of a comprehensive school in a Labour-controlled area with Labour governors. They knew where to send their children. Some comprehensive schools just are not working in certain areas. Something must be done about them, otherwise they will destroy any hopes of comprehensive acceptance in widespread areas.
The Robert Montefiore School in the East End, of which I had the honour to be headmaster for five years, has been mentioned in the newspapers. When it was a secondary modern school it had pupils going to university from very good fifth and sixth forms. There was then as high a percentage of immigrants as there is now. The number of immigrants is the excuse given now for the low level of results there. Last year there was not one O-level pass. People tend to put the 11-plus on one side and have bleeding compassion on the other for such schools as that attended by children in working-class areas. There are schools where German, Spanish, Russian and classics are taught, but physics is not taught to the standard required to offer pupils future opportunities. At other schools the General Certificate of Education has been sacked in favour of the Certificate of Secondary Education. The GCE is a tighter academic examination.
Some of my hon. Friends has referred to the results of comprehensive schools in Manchester. Those figures were put out by Mr. Baldwin, a member of the Manchester Education Committee. They have not yet been answered. If they are right, they are a serious indictment of comprehensive schools in one of our biggest cities. That situation needs to be investigated. I should welcome the opportunity of accompanying the Minister and other


hon. Gentlemen opposite to find out what is happening.
Sheffield has also been mentioned. Its comprehensive system is by no means good, according to The Times Educational Supplement. It did not rise parallel with the national rise. The same comment applies to Liverpool.
We must find out whether the comprehensive system is working in our cities. I do not think that it is. Is the system to be fashioned rather like tower blocks which were designed by men with compassion for others? What a disaster they have proved. I suggest that some of the big schools will prove to be similar disasters.
The worst philosophical point about the Bill is its attempt to seek an ideal the Bill is its attempt to seek an ideal Europe in the 1930s, "a final solution". In human nature there is no final solution. If this is to be the final system, if everyone must have the same, we shall have dull, arrogant stagnation evermore. This is the most terrible aspect of the Bill.

Mr. Flannery: No one in this debate has said that comprehensive education is the final solution. In fact, the opposite has been said. We on this side of the House believe in an evolutionary process. This is a step forward from what the hon. Gentleman believes.

Dr. Boyson: I am glad to have heard that this is not the final solution. Apparently it is a temporary measure until we have new legislation next week. I thought that this was an attempt to make education the same for everybody. I have obviously misunderstood. Under the 1944 Act all schools had to be grammar or secondary modern. There was no movement towards a comprehensive system. This system is the result of evolution, because authorities were allowed to organise their schools as they wanted. That is now coming to an end. If that is not stagnation and a final solution, I do not know what the Bill is about.
The choice is between a totally comprehensive system—a monopoly situation—and a predominantly comprehensive system—which we now have—in which 73 per cent. or 74 per cent. of schoolchildren are in comprehensive schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, we do not

want to unscramble the comprehensive schools that at present exist and we are not saying that if local authorities, with the agreement of parents, want to build up comprehensive schools they should not do so. We are saying that comprehensive schools should not be planted all over the country until an assessment has been made that they are academically and socially more desirable.
No one can say that there is no way of assessing them. Approximately 75 per cent. of schoolchildren are now in comprehensive schools. About 40 areas have gone totally comprehensive. We must compare those areas with other areas of the country which are not comprehensive. Upon that assessment we should judge the future organisation of schools in this country.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: What about the criteria? With what is the hon. Gentleman comparing them?

Dr. Boyson: We are comparing the "O" level and "A" level results over a period in areas which have gone comprehensive with areas that have not. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, there is no point in my explaining it further.
We have to assess the future on three or four criteria. Labour Members have spoken about the iniquitous 11-plus examination. I accept that there was a fear of the 11-plus. According to the National Foundation for Educational Research there was a 10 per cent. misplacement at the age of 11. There was also variation in the percentage of grammar school places available throughout the country. There was 5 per cent. in one place and 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. in another. However, time has moved on and so has this side of the House—if not the other side.
Another three problems have to be assessed. First, is the bright working-class child in a deprived area being given the same opportunity now as he received before for grammar school selection? I do not think he is. Secondly, if there is increasing illiteracy among 15 and 16-year olds, which seems to be the case, is it due to the way in which those children are dealt with in comprehensive schools in our cities? It may be. Thirdly, in many areas we are removing selection by


examination and replacing it with selection by the purse. In other words, the impression that the council tenant makes on the housing manager may decide the flat which he is allocated. We are not moving to a new Jerusalem. Certain of these things will be more reprehensible to hon. Gentlemen in the secrecy of this Chamber tonight than even some of the previous objections to the 11-plus.
It has been said that in certain areas houses increase in price according to the catchment area of the local schools. This is a new form of selection. There is also the question of assessing the results. I quote the speech of the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice), the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science. He is present today and we welcome him. He said:
The results in comprehensive schools have been at least as good as, if not better than, those in grammar schools."—[Official report, 1st May 1974; Vol. 872, c. 1177.]
Time has gone on. On 24th November last year the present Secretary of State said:
…. there is not evidence one way or the other to show that there is any loss as a result of the introduction of comprehensive schools into the system."—[Official Report, 24th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 518.]
There was no claim then that they might improve. The most we can claim is that they will be static. In two years' time, will another Secretary of State say that there is evidence of some academic decline but that other factors will make up for this? We are in a serious situation unless we can find some proof for this.
Labour Members also mentioned an elitist complex within the Conservative Party. Like most, if not all, of my hon. Friends, I have been concerned with the mobility of children from all classes all of my life. For 23 years I have taught in schools and have been the head of schools, all in working-class areas. I spent 10 years in secondary modern schools, where I built examination courses and transfer courses in an attempt to enhance the mobility and academic choices of working-class children. My children have also attended State secondary schools, so I hope that no one will throw back at me the suggestion that what I am saying is a defence of a narrow sector. That is an easy slogan

which will not work. Something else had better be tried. I believe that the bright child from the poor home in a city ghetto area is now likely to be more deprived, particularly if he attends the Robert Montefiore School, than he was 10 or 15 years ago under the previous system.
The Government side of the House has no monopoly on compassion. Compassion exists on both sides of the House. We have to assess the results of what is being done. I do not doubt the motives of Labour Members. Generally, people doubt others' motives when they have no arguments. However, I doubt the results of what the Bill might do in many cases. I do not want to see the ladders of social and academic advance coming down. I want to see more of them. I am worried that if the Bill is passed we shall have in certain areas fewer than we have had in the past.
If the Under-Secretary is thinking of quoting any of my remarks about comprehensive schools—and I welcome the textual analysis that takes place regularly on the Government Benches—I hope that she quotes from my more recent remarks and not those of seven years ago. Some of us develop our views when we see certain things happening, and there is no stagnation.
Mention has been made of the money difference between the two sides of the House, and of the Government cutting money—and a Government who are likely to cut money more. All of us can have arguments as to where it should be cut. I wrote an article representing my view about this only last week. However, it is far better for people to work out what they are going to do than to stagger from lamp-post to lamp-post, as happened last year.
There is another point: the Secretary of State is like Father Christmas, with £25 million, but apparently that must be taken from something else—possibly books and writing paper, and other things in desperately short supply. If ever something needed to be centralised, it is the purchase of books and stationery. That should without doubt be done on a central capitation allowance basis.
I conclude by addressing, first, the empty Liberal Benches. The Liberals may have their problems. As I recall the statement made by the hon. Member


for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), it seems that the Liberals will support the Government tonight. They will be voting for 95 per cent. of children to have no choice of school—except for the neighbourhood comprehensive—while they themselves, in many cases, can have for their children the choice of 5 per cent., the independent schools, through their long purses. If that has anything to do with Liberalism, I do not know what it is. If any of the nineteenth century Liberals saw those Benches now—that does not include the Chief Whip—and if they heard the speech of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely, they would apply for membership of the Carlton Club tonight. The present Liberal Party represents no choice or liberty as it once did in the nineteenth century.
I believe that at one time in the Parliament of 1970–74, before I had the honour of becoming a Member of this House, there was an argument about the then Housing Finance Bill and that a group of Members now on the Government Benches but then of the Opposition actually wanted local option and felt it wrong that nationally they should be told what they should do. They even continued the argument after that Bill became law.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) about the vote to retain the standards in Southend, and we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) about his area. I can only express the hope that if these Labour Members have any consistency they will act as they acted in the debate on unemployment last Thursday, thereby showing that they believe that local option is better than central direction. Otherwise we shall be forced to the view that they have rather adaptable consciences and only mild, impartial martyrdom rather like instant, mild, coffee—tasteless, painless, and popular.
Their attitude seems to be that this Government must be obeyed because it is their Government, but when other people—including members of the working-class—vote another Government into power, that Government must not be obeyed. That shows what great democrafts they are. It is rather like the Communists who always want a democratic

vote to get them in government, but once they are in there is no record of people ever being allowed to vote them out.
We on this side and people in the country are aware of the great damage that has been done by this Labour Government. We are aware of the weight of taxation which is killing people's initiative. We are aware of the amount of foreign borrowing which is keeping the Government afloat. This measure is different for its effect will be difficult to measure. But in the long run it can be even more disastrous for the people, because the Government are driving on regardless, without any proof.
It rather reminds me of a play which some Labour Members as well as some of my hon. Friends may have seen. It was by Joan Littlewood and I saw it at Stratford—"Oh, what a wonderful war". She portrayed the First World War generals—rightly or wrongly—as sending wave after wave of young men over the top to their death, eventually winning the war, but at what a cost! The Government are sending Buckinghamshire and the other recalcitrants over the top. This will bring about the physical destruction of our young people and it could be the intellectual destruction of the seed corn of our country if the Bill goes through.
It must be realised that nobody on this side wanted a return to the 11-plus. Hon. Members opposite obviously prepared their speeches before hearing any Conservative Member speak. It is a choice between a predominance of the comprehensive system and assessing whether that is right or wrong and, on the other side, a complete monopoly, as was made very clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
A leading article in The Times said about the Bill that when an armistice should have been offered, unconditional surrender was demanded. Education needs a healing armistice so that people can come together and see what the problems are. Instead, we have this highwayman's gun demanding unconditional surrender.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford state that if we return to power—as we shall, whether it be in three months' time or


whether we have to wait a little longer than that—we shall repeal the Bill if it has gone through by then. We shall fight the Bill in Committee, but if it goes through we shall repeal it for six reasons.
First, we are concerned about standards for the deprived child in working-class areas. Secondly, we see no proof anywhere in the country that comprehensive education has led to improvement. Nor has this happened in other countries—for example, in Eastern Europe—where the experiment has been tried. Thirdly, there is no parental choice catered for from beginning to end in the Bill. Fourthly, we believe in the right of local option. Fifthly, we believe in minority rights. Sixthly, education, like so much else, wants some peace so that it can sort itself out before we can decide where we are going. The Bill will not provide that.
I ask my hon. Friends and those hon. Members opposite who are honourably inclined to act tonight to throw this Bill out by declining to give it a Second Reading.

9.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): Listening to the disappointing winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) convinced me that heads of comprehensive schools should believe passionately in what they are doing. The success or failure of a comprehensive school rests, to a very large extent, on the commitment of those running it.
Several Opposition Members have spoken of their concern that the Bill will compel local authorities to submit plans to the Government to enable them to go comprehensive in line with Government policy. They said that this was a denial of the freedom of local authorities to administer education in the way they wished. But the 1944 Act, which was passed by a war-time coalition Government, did just that—it put on local authorities a legal responsibility to reorganise secondary education along lines decided by the Government.
Some of my hon. Friends have mentioned the Housing Finance Act, which denied local authorities some of the freedom they had in relation to fixing rents. Comprehensive reorganisation was spelled

out in the Labour Party manifesto. It has been argued in the House in the lifetime of previous Governments, and everybody who voted Labour in the last General Election was fully aware of our intentions on comprehensive reorganisation. This was not so in relation to the Housing Finance Act, which the last Conservative Government introduced. That was not spelled out in their manifesto.
The justification for compelling local authorities to fall into line with Government policy was given by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who said that if a certain number of local authorities refused to co-operate with Government policy we had the right to say that we had told the electorate that we would introduce comprehensive education and, in order to keep our election promises, we would compel education authorities to fall into line. I also agreed with the hon. Member when he said that what happens in primary schools has been and is distorted where comprehensive education does not exist. Primary schools have to dance to the tune of "Who will go to the grammar school?" The bribing of parents to get their children through the 11-plus examination and the methods used by independent schools to coach children to pass the examination distorts all that many dedicated primary school teachers are trying to do in introducing the comprehensive principle in primary education.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) referred to the question of parents—he is not a parent; I am a parent, though that has nothing to do with it—wanting to see the values taught in their homes reflected in the education system. To a large extent, that is correct. The majority of the electorate believe much more in co-operation in our schools than in competition. They do not believe in a system that makes decisions about their children far too soon in life and results in frustration and disappointment.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford likened me to Lavinia. I gather that she had her tongue torn out. He said that had been silent on the issue of free school milk. The hon. Gentleman is very literary, and is familiar with Shakespeare. I am sure he will not object to my reminding the House that Lavinia was raped, that her eyes were put out,


that her tongue was torn out, and that her arms were cut off in order that she would be unable to identify her assailant. I am sure that the House would want me to make clear that the hon. Member has in no way been my assailant and that, in spite of the anti-discrimination legislation, I am not likely to take the initiative in respect of him.
With the Bill, we shall manage to make things a little better in education, but I remain convinced in what I have said about milk for children in primary schools and beyond. I hope that when the economic climate improves we shall be able to reintroduce free school milk. I am as disappointed as anyone that we have not been able to do so yet.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Miss Lestor: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman likes to dish it out, but he does not like to take it.
Some hon. Members felt, quite rightly, that some schemes being adopted by authorities were better than others. We have taken into account varying local conditions, the facilities and the schools that exist, when judging the schemes that local authorities produce. We are concerned that schemes should fit into the framework that we are trying to establish, which is based on certain principles. These are that selection should be abolished and that there should be equal opportunity in secondary education for all the children in the area. It is only right that local authorities should have some leeway when they propose schemes to us. If we feel that a scheme does not meet our requirements, we have the right to say that it does not comply with the principles outlined in the Bill.

Dr. Hampson: Will the Under-Secretary reply to the question I put to her? What will happen to the 13 out of 30 authorities that run sixth-form colleges? Will these be approved as part of the comprehensive system, in view of the Secretary of State's desire to abolish selection at all ages?

Miss Lestor: I promise the hon. Member that I shall deal with his question in due course.
Hon. Members referred to banding, and the position of the Inner London Education Authority. We believe that banding is a form of selection. There

was justification for it when comprehensive schools were being introduced alongside grammar schools. If the grammar school had been allowed to cream off what were judged to be the academically more able pupils, the comprehensive schools would have been left with an unbalanced intake. Steps were therefore taken to ensure a balance. When selection disappears, however, there will be no possible justification for banding. It will be inappropriate under the new legislation.
There is some confusion about the concept of neighbourhood schools. It is a subject that needs a great deal more discussion. In talking about neighbourhood schools, some people imply that working-class children in deprived areas are less able than children in materially better-off areas. They go on to argue that if neighbourhood schools are located in less well endowed areas the children who attend those schools will perform less well than they would at a similar school in a materially better-off area.
Under the selective system of education, children have been selected as much on social class as on ability, and the result has been to prove that argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Before hon. Gentleman say "Nonsense", let me take the only good point made by the hon. Member for Brent, North, who said that whereas in many parts of the country 5 per cent. of the children go to grammar schools, in other areas, 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. go to grammar schools. The selective system has to some extent fulfilled a prohecy that was made. The investment made in children judged to be successful was far greater than was the investment made in those who were said to be failures. We know that to be true when we consider the amount of money spent and the way in which it was spent.
One does not improve the opportunities for a child in a run down and deprived neighbourhood merely by sending him to a school in another area. What has to be done is to improve the environment, not move children away from their environment and make them ashamed of the conditions in which they are being brought up.
Even more important, we must not fall into the trap of assuming that working-class children perform less well


than do middle-class children. The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) referred to a recent speech of mine in which I spoke of deprivation and the problems associated with it. In that speech I also said that deprivation was not only associated with the lack of material well being; the child of the overambitious parent suffers just as much from deprivation as does the child from a materially badly endowed area.
The problem of deprivation and neigh bourhood schools is much more complicated than is suggested in the argument that, because an area is deprived the children will perform badly and that we should, therefore, send them to a school in a better area so that they can live up to the standards of middle-class children. That is an argument that we have yet to resolve.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: Mrs. Lynda Chalker (Wallasey) rose—

Miss Lestor: No, I shall not give way. I have already given way on one occasion. The hon. Member for Brent, North gave way twice. I shall later choose the lucky person to whom I shall give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) made a moving speech. He underlined many of the concerns and aspirations of working-class parents on behalf of their children, and referred to the many problems that are associated with broken homes and one-parent families. He made an argument for increasing boarding school provision. Many people hold that view, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. Possibly we could keep many children out of care if there were better boarding facilities. However, many people hold the view, with equal conviction, that it is far better to assist the single parent to stay at home with his or her child than to force the child away from its home when it is living in an already deprived family situation.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) asked about the financial assistance that will be given to areas that go comprehensive. What my right hon. Friend said about the £25 million is correct; that sum will

be additional to the programme for other purposes, such as roofs over heads, nursery education—incidentally, that has not been finished—and other matters. In many cases only minor modifications are required to enable secondary schools to be reorganised. The £25 million will assist reorganisation in well over 200 schools. In addition, a large part of the basic needs programme will facilitate reorganisation by enlarging grammar or secondary modern schools that will be part and parcel of the new comprehensive system. Whatever may be the misunderstandings, my right hon. Friend's statement about £25 million being additional is accurate.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby) rose—

Miss Lestor: I shall not give way for the moment. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has only just entered the Chamber.
Many people feel deeply about the desirability of consulting parents about the school which they wish their child to attend. This matter, which is dealt with in Circulars 10/65 and 4/74—both deal with comprehensive reorganisation—is not part of the law and, therefore, it is not in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) talked about guided parental choice within the terms of Clause 1. If guidance were to be selection under another name, it would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill. We all hope that parental choice, guided by experienced teachers, will always play a part in determining the education of children.

Mr. Noble: Does my hon. Friend accept that this guided parental choice must be associated with transfer at the age of 13 into some kind of senior high school, and that in those circumstances it will inevitably lead to streaming in the junior school to prepare children for a GCE course? In that sense I believe that it frustrates the intentions of the Bill.

Miss Lestor: If that interpretation were placed on this question, I agree with my hon. Friend that in many ways it would distort the intention of the Bill. That is not the intention. It is as I have already outlined.
The hon. Member for Ripon asked about selection for sixth form colleges, and whether this would continue. This is a very important issue in comprehensive education. The position is that most sixth form colleges are open-access, and provide a wide variety of courses for students of varying abilities. A small number—I accept what the hon. Member says—are selective in one form or another. Some of these are happily moving towards more open access, and I hope that others will follow suit. This matter will have to be watched very carefully indeed as comprehensive education "rolls on"—if I may adopt a phrase that has already been used.
Two or three hon. Gentlemen asked about discipline, corporal punishment, and similar items. I believe it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) who said, during one of the big education debates, that in the 19th century the riot squad had to he brought into certain public schools where difficulties had arisen. That does not happen today, I am happy to add, it is unfair to associate the question of discipline in schools with the question of the development of comprehensive education. Perhaps this House is not as well behaved as it might be. Some of the worst offenders have not been to comprehensive schools.
It is often said that young people reflect the example given to them by many adults. I accept that in some schools there are discipline problems, but this is by no means just in comprehensive schools. I have already said that I accept that in some schools there are some problems. I should have thought that we need to look a little more closely at the sort of society in which we are living—the changes that have taken place in family patterns, the break-up of families, the one-parent families, the rate of divorce, and a host of other things that have transformed the fabric of our society.
The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn talked about standards, size, the organisation of schools, and so on. I am told that Eton College, which is in my constituency, is a comprehensive school. It is not comprehensive in terms of social intake. It is certainly comprehensive in terms of ability intake. It is

a large school, but I have never yet heard any Opposition Members who went to that school attack it because of its size.
What is important in secondary education and in comprehensive education—this applies to all secondary schools—is the organisation of the school and how it is administered, not its size.
In the months during which I have been in the Department of Education I have seen large schools magnificently run in many parts of the country, and I have seen small schools very badly run. When they are badly run, small schools have many of the problems that exist in other schools. So I think that this is a matter at which we shall have to look—

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West) rose—

Miss Lestor: If I gave way to the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), I might be accused of favouring previous members of my constituency, and that would never do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) asked about the future of Parmitter's School. Although I cannot comment on what my hon. Friend said, since it has not happened yet, if the school moved to Watford the local education authority would be required to publish notices to maintain the school. Such proposals would require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I have no doubt that he would examine them very carefully.

Mr. Channon: Mr. Channon rose—

Miss Lestor: So that I can calm the passions of hon. Members, I shall not give way any more, because I do not have time. I said that I would give way to someone later on in the debate, and I did so.
I want to align myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies), who dealt in some detail with the elitism of our education system and the virtues of moving away from the narrow and rigid constraints of academic education towards a widening of educational opportunity to meet the needs of all members of our society. I believe that that is


right. We are bringing in this Bill because we are prompted by a concept that is based fundamentally on a belief in the virtues of a community of people with different abilities and different aptitudes, all of which are of value to our society. We believe that this community should be given the opportunity to respect these different abilities in each other and to provide their children with opportunities to exploit them to the full.
A lot of hard words have been said tonight about those of us who wish to introduce this Bill. As I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, with my gently waved hair, my faint touch of lipstick and my multi-coloured jersey dress, I hope that I look like a woman who wishes to change our education system. That is what we intend to do. [Interruption.] I knew that Opposition Members would not be able to take that. That is what we intend to do. That is the purpose of the Bill. That was one of the promises in our election manifesto, and we intend to

keep it in the face of opposition based on prejudice, elitism and the guarding of people's privileges.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: The House has listened to one of the most incompetent—[Interruption.]—and disgraceful speeches—[Interruption] The only honourable part—[Interruption,]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate about education.

Mr. Gow: Mr. Gow rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish) rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put. put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly. That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 255.

Division No. 51]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Coleman, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allaun, Frank
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Ford, Ben


Anderson, Donald
Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John


Archer, Peter
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Armstrong, Ernest
Corbett, Robin
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Ashley, Jack
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Freeson, Reginald


Ashton, Joe
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Freud, Clement


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Atkinson, Norman
Cronin, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
George, Bruce


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cryer, Bob
Gilbert, Dr John


Bates, Alf
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Ginsburg, David


Bean, R. E.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Golding, John


Beith, A. J.
Davidson, Arthur
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Gourlay, Harry


Pennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Graham, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
Deakins, Eric
Grant, John (Islington C)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grocott, Bruce


Boardman, H.
Delargy, Hugh
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Booth, Albert
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hardy, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Doig, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bradley, Tom
Dormand, J. D.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dunn. James A.
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Hooley, Frank


Buchanan, Richard
Eadie, Alex
Hooson, Emlyn


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Edge, Geoff
Horam, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
English, Michael
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Campbell, Ian
Ennals, David
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Huckfield, Les


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter, Ray
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hunter, Adam


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Cartwright, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Clemitson, Ivor
Flannery, Martin
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas




Jeger, Mrs Lena
Molloy, William
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moonman, Eric
Snape, Peter


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stoddart, David


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Newens, Stanley
Stott, Roger


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Noble, Mike
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oakes, Gordon
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Judd, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Halloran, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Kelley, Richard
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Kerr, Russell
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kinnock, Neil
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lambie, David
Owen, Dr David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lamborn, Harry
Padley, Walter
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Lamond, James
Palmer, Arthur
Tierney, Sydney


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pardoe, John
Tinn, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Park, George
Tomlinson, John


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Parry, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Tuck, Raphael


Lipton, Marcus
Pendry, Tom
Urwin, T. W.


Litterick, Tom
Perry, Ernest
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Loyden, Eddie
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Luard, Evan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Radice, Giles
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Ward, Michael


McCartney, Hugh
Richardson, Miss Jo
Watkins, David


McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkinson, John


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Weetch, Ken


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wellbeloved, James


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
White, James (Pollok)


Maclennan, Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roper, John
Whitlock, William


McNamara, Kevin
Rose, Paul B.
Wigley, Dafydd


Madden, Max
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Magee, Bryan
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Mahon, Simon
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Marks, Kenneth
Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Marquand, David
Selby, Harry
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Maynard, Miss Joan
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Woodall, Alec


Meacher, Michael
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Woof, Robert


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mendelson, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Julius



Millan, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Small, William
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. John Ellis.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Crltchley, Julian


Aitken, Jonathan
Brotherton, Michael
Crouch, David


Alison, Michael
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crowder, F. P.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Kn[...]tsford)


Arnold, Tom
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dean,Paul (N Somerset)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Budgen, Nick
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Awdry, Daniel
Bulmer, Esmond
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Kenneth
Burden, F. A.
Drayson, Burnaby


Banks, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bell, Ronald
Carlisle, Mark
Dunlop, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Carson, John
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Benyon, W.
Channon, Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Elliott, Sir William


Biffen, John
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Walter
Fairgrieve, Russell


Body, Richard
Cockcroft, John
Farr, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fell, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cordle, John H.
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cormack, Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Braine, Sir Bernard
Corrie, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brittan, Leon
Costain, A. P.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)







Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lloyd, Ian
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Luce, Richard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McCrindle, Robert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McCusker, H.
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Macfarlane, Neil
Royle, Sir Anthony


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gorst, John
Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shersby, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marten, Neil
Silvester, Fred


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mather, Carol
Sims, Roger


Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus
Sinclair, Sir George


Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Griffiths, Eldon
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick
Speed, Keith


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spence, John


Hall, Sir John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger
Stanley, John


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Molyneaux, James
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Havers, Sir Michael
Monro, Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Stokes, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morgan, Geraint
Tapsell, Peter


Hicks, Robert
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tebbit, Norman


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hunt, John
Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neubert, Michael
Trotter Neville


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony
Tugendhat, Christopher


James, David
Nott, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Viggers, Peter


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wakeham, John


Jopling, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Penha[...]gon, David
Wall, Patrick


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Percival, Ian
Walters, Dennis


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Warren, Kenneth


Kimball, Marcus
pink, R. Bonner
Weatherill, Bernard


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wells, John


King, Tom (Bridgwatar)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wiggin, Jerry


Knight, Mrs Jill
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Lane, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Younger, Hon George


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)



Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Le Merchant, Spencer
Ridley, Hon Nicholas



Letter, Jim (Beeston)
Ridsdale, Julian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

EDUCATION [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to education, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase in the sums so payable in respect of—

(i) grants under section 102 or loans under section 105 of the Education Act 1944, or
(ii) rate support grant under the Local Government Act 1974,

which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session relating to proposals for any such action as is mentioned in section 13 (1) or (2) of the Education Act 1944;

(b) any increase in the sums so payable in respect of grants under section 8(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session applying section 1 of the Education Act 1962 to courses for the higher diploma of the Technician Education Council or the Business Education Council;
(c) any increase in the sums so payable in respect of rate support grant under the Local Government Act 1974 which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session relating to the provision of milk by local education authorities.—[Mr. Gerry Fowler.]

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I shall not detain the House long. I wish to draw its attention to the form of the Money Resolution and to ask a number of questions about it. This is a curious Money Resolution and perhaps my experience in the House makes me unable to understand its total cost and content.
It says
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to education, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of
and then lists in paragraphs(a), (b) and (c) certain definitions. However, at no stage does it indicate any sum of money.
By coincidence, I deduce that paragraph (a) refers to Clause 3 of the Education Bill which has just had its Second Reading. Why do we have to authorise an item of expenditure without any limit

or ceiling to it in connection with a Bill which has just received its Second Reading? If we relate the paragraphs to the clauses, we discover that Clause 3 refers to the approval and implementation of the proposals. What is the cost of the implementation of the proposals likely to be? I do not want an answer which relates only to the cash cost today.
In the unemployment debate which took place a short time ago—

Mr. Peter Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to accept that your hearing, Mr. Speaker, may be substantially better than mine, but I am finding it extremely difficult to hear my hon. Friend's important remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should listen with respect to any hon. Member.

Mr. Dodsworth: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. Friend.
I should like to point out that 172 grammar schools are likely to be affected by the proposals contained in the Resolution. There must be a cost analysis. In the unemployment debate there was a continual call for the cost benefit analysis on a total basis. When we discussed unemployment we wanted to know about redundancy, social security and loss of production. When we discuss education we want to know not only the Government's expenditure but the local authority expenditure. This is a reasonable question to ask at a time when we are being asked to pass a Money Resolution.
Paragraph (b) refers to Clause 7. Paragraph (c) refers to Clause 8 which deals with milk. In the Explanatory Note on the
Financial effects of the Bili
it states that it will cost £6 million to £9 million. Those figures are not contained in the motion which we are being asked to approve.
This is a curious procedure whereby we are asked to approve expenditure in respect of legislation which has not yet been approved and for which the amount involved is uncertain. The only matter which is certain is that in 1976–77 £25


million is to be spent on the reorganisation of schools for comprehensive purposes.
What provisions are there in the Government's capital expenditure estimates to provide for this type of cost? Have the sums been done? Have the calculations been made? Our experience is that the Government machine succeeds in bungling the figures time after time. We have the Treasury's book-keeping record. The Home Office is unable to get the immigration figures right. I want to be sure that the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science has got his sums right. We want to know the cost. That is the purpose of the Resolution.

10.19 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I should like, Mr. Speaker, to add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members on your election to the Chair.

The provisions in the Bill relating to comprehensive education will not give rise to additional public expenditure. My right hon. Friend explained that he intends to use his power to require proposals to be treated as Section 13 proposals only where in his view resources are already available or provision can be made from future building programmes. I cannot estimate the size of future building programmes.

Regarding school milk, the Bill does no more than make possible the introduction, by regulations, of more flexible arrangements for the provision of milk by local education authorities. I am not yet in a position to say what form the new Regulations will take. My right hon. Friend, after consulting the local authority associations in due course, will doubtless report to the House. That is why there is a range of figures in the Financial Memorandum regarding what might be the additional cost.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes, 293, Noes 252.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
10.21 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Allaun, Frank
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Anderson, Donald
Conlan, Bernard
Ford, Ben


Archer, Peter
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Forrester, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Corbett, Robin
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Ashley, Jack
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Ashton, Joe
Crawshaw, Richard
Freeson, Reginald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cronin, John
Freud, Clement


Atkinson, Norman
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cryer, Bob
Garrett, W. E. (Walisend)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
George, Bruce


Bates, Alf
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Gilbert, Dr John


Bean, R. E.
Davidson, Arthur
Ginsburg, David


Beith. A. J.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Golding, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Denzil (Llanel[...]i)
Gould, Bryan


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davis, Clinton (Hack[...]ev C)
Gourlay, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric
Graham, Ted


Bishop, E. S.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Delargy, Hugh
Grant, John (Islington C)


Boardman, H.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Grocott, Bruce


Booth, Albert
Dempsey, James
Hardy, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bradley, Tom
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunn, James A.
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dunnett, Jack
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchanan, Richard
Edge, Geoff
Hooley, Frank


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hooson, Emlyn


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Horam, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
English, Michael
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Campbell, Ian
Ennals, David
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Huckfield, Les


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Carter, Ray
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew
Hunter, Adam


Cartwright, John
Ferny hough, Rt Hn E.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Clemitson, Ivor
Flannery, Martin
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)




Janner, Greville
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Molloy, William
Snape, Peter


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moonman, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stallard, A. W.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stoddart, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stott, Roger


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Newens, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Noble, Mike
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oakes, Gordon
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Judd, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Swain, Thomas


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Halloran, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Kelley, Richard
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kerr, Russell
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kinnock, Neil
Ovenden, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lambie, David
Owen, Dr David
Tierney, Sydney


Lamborn, Harry
Padley, Walter
Tinn, James


Lamond, James
Palmer, Arthur
Tomlinson, John


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Park, George
Tomney, Frank


Leadbitter, Ted
Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tuck, Raphael


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Urwin, T. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pendry, Tom
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lipton, Marcus
Perry, Ernest
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Litterick, Tom
Phipps, Dr Colin
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Loyden, Eddie
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Luard, Evan
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Radice, Giles
Ward, Michael


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Watkins, David


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Richardson, Miss Jo
Watkinson, John


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weetch, Ken


McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wellbeloved, James


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roderick, Caerwyn
White, Frank R. (Bury)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, James (Pollok)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mackintosh, John P.
Rooker, J. W.
Whitlock, William


Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John
Wigley, Dafydd


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rose, Paul B.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Madden, Max
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Magee, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Mahon, Simon
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marks, Kenneth
Selby, Harry
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Marquand, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woodall, Alec


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Woof, Robert


Maynard, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)



Mendelson, John
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Millan, Bruce
Small, William
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Critchley, Julian


Altken, Jonathan
Brotherton, Michael
Crouch, David


Alison, Michael
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crowder, F. P.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul
Davies, Rt hon J. (Knutsford)


Arnold, Tom
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dean,Paul (N Somerset)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Budgen, Nick
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Awdry, Daniel
Bulmer, Esmond
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Kenneth
Burden, F. A.
Drayson, Burnaby


Banks, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bell, Ronald
Carlisle, Mark
Dunlop, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Carson, John
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Benyon, W.
Channon, Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Elliott, Sir William


Biffen, John
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth ([...]usncliffe)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Body, Richard
Cockcroft, John
Fell, Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cordle, John H.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cormack, Patrick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Sir Bernard
Corrie, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Brittan, Leon
Costain, A. P.
Fox, Marcus







Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Loveridge, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Fry, Peter
Luce, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McCusker, H.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macfarlane, Neil
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacGregor, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sainsbury, Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gorst, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marten, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Colin


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maude, Angus
Shersby, Michael


Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Fred


Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sims, Roger


Griffiths, Eldon
Mayhew, Patrick
Sinclair, Sir George


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hall, Sir John
Mills, Peter
Speed, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Hannam,John
Molyneaux, James
Stainton, Keith


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Monro, Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Havers, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanley, John


Hawkins, Paul
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stokes, John


Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Tapsell, Peter


Holland, Philip
Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hunt, John
Neubert, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Newton, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nott, John
Townsend, Cyril D.


James, David
Onslow, Cranley
Trotter Neville


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jessel, Toby
Page, John (Harrow West)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Viggers, Peter


Jopling, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Penhaligon, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Percival, Ian
Wall, Patrick


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walters, Dennis


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
Warren, Kenneth


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Prior, Rt Hon James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Knight, Mrs Jill
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wiggin, Jerry


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lane, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Younger, Hon George


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Le Merchant, Spencer
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Mr. Jim Lester and


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Lloyd, Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

LONDON COUNCILLORS

10.34 p.m.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move,
That the London Councillors Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
The purpose of the London Councillors Order is to bring the term of office for councillors in Greater London into line with that in force in England and Wales

generally. Before the reorganisation of local government the term of office for local councillors everywhere was three years, but the 1972 reorganisation changed this to four years.
The four-year term applied from the start to all the new authorities and to parish councils in England and community councils in Wales.
It would have been anomalous to have left the GLC and the London boroughs with three-year terms when everywhere else had four-year terms, so Section 8 of


the Local Government Act 1972 provided for this to be rectified by an Order establishing a four-year term in London, too. The present Order does just that.
Section 8 provided that in the case of the GLC the Order should secure that ordinary elections of councillors should take place in the same years as ordinary elections of county councillors. The next county council elections will be held in 1977, so the Order simply moves the next GLC elections to that date. Subsequent elections will follow at four-year intervals.
For the London boroughs, the section allows for elections to be held either on the basis of the full council's retiring together, or for one-third of them to retire in each of the years between the quadrennial GLC elections.
The Order provides for the continuance of whole-council elections in 1978 and every four years thereafter.
The main consequential effect concerns the abolition of the office of alderman. This was effected for Wales and the rest of England on the recent reorganisation, and again provision was made in the Act to bring London into line by Order. The Act provided for this to be done at the 1976 GLC elections and the 1977 borough elections, subject to any change in the dates of those elections made by Order under Section 8. So the present Order provides for the office of alderman to be abolished for the GLC at the 1977 elections and for the boroughs at the time of their elections in 1978.
The laying of this draft Order has been preceded by extensive consultations with the representatives of the London local authorities and the main political parties. Those consultations were instituted by the previous Conservative Government and have been continued by the present Government. I am glad to say that both the London authorities and the main political parties expressed unanimous agreement with the main provisions of the Order—in particular, the introduction of four-year terms of office and the postponement of the next elections for one year.
While there was rather less political unanimity about the question whether London borough council elections should be held on a whole-council basis or by

thirds, a very clear majority of the London boroughs themselves opted for the system of whole-council elections. In view of the pledge—rightly given by the previous Government—that the wishes of the London authorities would be respected, we have provided in this Order for the continuation of the present system of whole-council elections.
This, then, is an Order on which a substantial degree of agreement has been reached. In essence, it is the same as the one which the present Opposition, when in office, proposed.
The House may recall a series of announcements made by successive Governments on this subject. The first was on 20th March 1973 when the noble Lord, formerly the rt. hon. Member for Carshalton—then the Home Secretary—announced the decision to delay the GLC elections to 1977. This statement was, I understand, deliberately made before the closing date for the nomination of candidates. This was at the urgent request of the then Conservative GLC so that candidates would know that they were in reality in for a four-year term. Thus, candidates and voters knew before the 1973 election that elected councillors would serve a four-year term and would retire in 1977.
Next, the rt. hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) repeated this statement on 25th July 1973 and at the same time announced that the normal term of office for London borough councillors would also be four years. On 18th December 1973 he confirmed the decision on the four-year term of office for London borough councillors and announced that the next elections would be held in 1978.
In answer to a Parliamentary Question on 19th December last year I made a similar announcement about this Government's intentions, including, in the light of the views expressed by the majority of London boroughs, the retention of whole-council elections—intentions which are now given effect to in this Order.
As I have said, this Order accurately reflects the wishes of the London authorities themselves. As the wishes of the London authorities were regarded as the paramount consideration when the enabling power was introduced in 1972, and since the main provisions had been


accepted by the previous Conservative Government, I do not think that there need be any controversy about this draft Order. Indeed, I hope that the spirit of agreement which has characterised the consultation process will similarly characterise this debate.
I commend this draft Order to the House.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May I take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of congratulating you, on behalf of the whole House, on your occupying the Chair. You will be there for what may prove to be a very interesting debate.
The Minister has taken us on an interesting stroll down Memory Lane, but if he thinks that this Order is non-controversial, his thoughts will not be translated into facts. We are opposing the Order on three grounds—its invalidity, the incompetence of the Government and in the interests of democracy.
We contend that the Order is invalid. Clearly there is a difference of legal opinion here which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will discuss if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is invalid because of its provision on the London borough elections and the complicated issue about coinciding with the provisions for metropolitan district councils. It turns on the words "year or years". As a layman, shall leave this matter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. I am sure the Minister, as a member of that strong closed shop union of lawyers, would not wish a non-lawyer to trespass in these matters.
The Order is not amendable. If it is incorrect in part, the whole thing is wrong.
There may be some surprise among hon. Members opposite that we are opposing the Order. They may say that we are reversing our stand of four or five years ago and they may quote some Conservative spokesmen. In an answer to me in 1973, the then Minister said that the next GLC elections would be held in 1977, but it was also made clear that this would be the subject of consultations. I do not know what went on behind the closed doors of the London

Labour Party, but we do not regard ourselves as bound tonight by anything that came out of that building.
The Prime Minister is on the record as saying that a week is a long time in politics. Three years is even longer. Events have moved on and the people of London are not prepared to wait any longer for the chance to vote. I have been consistent in fighting proposals to delay local elections. I did so in 1948 and 1967 and I do so again tonight. Those delays were all introduced by and on the initiative of Labour Governments. The curious thing, which follows from something that the right hon. Gentleman said, is the fact that, rather as in one of the Sherlock Holmes books, the dog did not bark. From 1973 to 1975 there was total public silence from Labour. When in Government they were clearly too busy overriding the law to save their Clay Cross friends to worry about London. The Minister was too busy passing the Community Land Bill, increasing the local and national bureaucracy, to look after the interests of London.
Nobody knows how long this drift would have gone on. It was brought to a head in November by the wish of Sir Desmond Plummer to relinquish his GLC seat in St Marylebone. Sir Desmond was told that if he resigned, the 200,000 electors of St Marylebone would be disfranchised because the returning officer could not permit a by-election to be held. Its occurrence would be within six months of the general GLC elections the following May.
The Government had done nothing, but now they were alerted. That was why the Minister gave his Answer in the House. He suddenly had a pin put in his posterior to prompt him to do something. I do not blame him. He was very busy telling us how good the Community Land Bill was. The truth is that he had forgotten. That is the basis of my second charge of incompetence. There were great differences of opinion in many parts of the Government, particularly the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, one side saying that an Order would suffice and the other suggesting that a Bill would be needed to remedy the situation. Presumably the political masters won that battle, knowing that there would be no time for a


Bill. They thought that they would take a chance and try getting away with an Order.
I submit that one should not take a chance with democracy. These things should be done properly. In any case, the courts may yet have to decide, if the Order is not rejected by the House. I remind the Executive that they are still subject to the courts—as the Home Office discovered over its arrogant attitude to television licence fees. It tried to laugh that off, but it was brought to heel by the free courts of the country.
We say that Londoners should be given the chance to say what they want this year, not next year. Give Londoners the chance this year to rid themselves of the Socialist encumbrances which get worse week by week at County Hall. I make no secret of my support for such a move. I am not scared of the people's verdict—unlike the Labour Party.
Since Labour took control at County Hall, more than 2,000 extra staff have been taken on, but with no notable increase in efficiency. The annual salary bill has increased by £15 million—the product of a penny rate. Since Labour took control at the little Kremlin across the water, staff costs to chase rent arrears have gone up from £160,000 per annum to £900,000 per annum, and the rent arrears are over £3·5 million. Squatters occupy 1,200 GLC properties without a licence and another 2,000 with a licence, all at no rent. Rate increases of over 235 per cent. in just two years are the record of the Labour Party across the water—almost the highest figure in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What has all this high-falutin' nonsense to do with the Order we are discussing? We are discussing an Order which sets out the dates on which various elections have to take place. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) is talking about squatters, rent arrears, housing—nothing to do with the Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): When I hear something that I regard as out of order, I shall let the House know.

Mr. Finsberg: After the Labour Party won the last GLC election campaign by

telling the public that there would be no increase in fares, with the ultimate hope of free fares, London Transport fares have risen by more than 110 per cent.
On education, the GLC's incompetence is even more manifest. Indiscipline and truancy are rampant. That is one reason why we believe that the election date should not be postponed.

Mr. William Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I to understand, if I catch your eye, that I may speak about Clay Cross, the Community Land Act, unemployment, the principle of taxation, rating, education and many other subjects? If the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) is permitted to speak on all those matters, we should not be prohibited from doing so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am under the impression that the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself largely to the problems of London.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) mistaken, in that his chances of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are extremely limited as the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has already lined up the remaining speakers in the debate?

Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful to be thought capable of fixing the list. That is praise from the Labour Party.
On education, the incompetence of the GLC is even more manifest. Indiscipline and truancy are rampant, academic standards are low, literacy is below the national average and a large comprehensive school—Robert Montefiore—failed to get one "O" level pass last summer. All this despite the best overall pupil-teacher ratio in the country. One does not need to mention William Tyndall, because we have been told from across the water that that is not likely to be the only "William Tyndall" in London.
The GLC's incompetence in running London's affairs is plain for all to see. The chairman and vice-chairman of two major committees resigned because they were unhappy about the extravagant financial policy of the GLC. The houseing development chairman was pushed out because she was not Left Wing


enough, and six members were reported to the London Labour Party for disobeying their whips, including the wife of the Minister responsible for the arts.
In case I am accused of using my own words, let me quote from the Evening Standard of 29th April 1975, which reported the words of Dr. Haseler who was then Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of the GLC. He said:
I intend to go to the back benches to offer constructive criticism of the GLC which I believe is failing London during a momentous financial crisis by indecisiveness, vacillation and compromise. We are a fat beast which needs slimming down. Action taken by the leadership has been too little and too late and could lead eventually to the end of London government.
According to The Times of 30th April 1975, Dr Haseler also said—this is perhaps even more relevant—that
Because the leadership of the GLC, reflecting as it does the time-serving leadership elsewhere, has sought to appease the ultra-left rather than stand up to them, we are now at the edge of the financial precipice.
He added that
The picture of London regional government now is of a pathetic and paralysed leadership, only interested in holding office, being kicked around by Whitehall, attacked by the boroughs,
—the attack by the boroughs on the GLC's plan to hog the community land proposals had to be seen to be believed, and the GLC was left with a very bloody nose—
comprised by appeasement of their more left-wing colleagues, and taking decisions on a day-to-day basis—all of which only stores up trouble for the future.

Sir Anthony Royle: Is there not one other matter that Dr. Haseler could have mentioned—the gross interference with the outer London boroughs by the GLC over the past two years?

Mr. Finsberg: Yes, indeed. That is perfectly true. It is significant that in quite a few outer London boroughs that offered nominations to the GLC—the so-called wicked Tory outer London boroughs—the GLC did not even take up its full allocation. Let that be nailed yet again.
All this adds up to a very simple whole. The Labour GLC is incompe-

tent, spendthrift, and obsessed by dogmas and stale, sterile political theories.
The Order is of doubtful legality. There is a very simple solution for the Government and the House. I hope that the Minister—for whom we have great personal respect—will invite the House to vote the Order down and let Londoners decide at the polls this May what sort of administration they want to govern in their name.
In about an hour's time we shall know whether the Government are putting the interests of their political cronies first or are willing to trust the people at the polls.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. John Cartwright: I should like to bring the House back to the Order that we ought to be debating.
I share the incredulity of many of my colleagues on these Benches that the Opposition intend to vote against the Order. It is a question not of humbug but of some political integrity.
I was the chief whip of the London Boroughs Association when consultation was undertaken by the Conservative Government about how closely we might bring London local government into line with the rest of the country. That consultation and the discussion and debate in the London Boroughs Association were not carried on in any way on party political lines. That ought to be very firmly underlined.
I therefore waited to see what the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) would pray in aid for his tactics in opposing the Order. The case he makes is something less than convincing. He has sought, for example, to throw some doubt on the firmness of the undertakings given by the previous Conservative Government about the GLC elections. Those undertakings were absolutely clear.
On 20th March 1973 the then Home Secretary said very firmly in a Written Answer:
This will mean that councillors elected in 1973 will serve until 1977."—[Official Report, 20th March 1973; vol. 853, col. 43.]
There can be no dubiety at all about that.
Similarly, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said on 25th July 1973 in a Written Answer that:
The next election of Greater London councillors will thus be held in 1977."—[Official Report, 25th July 1973; vol. 860, col. 455.]
There is no dubiety, and no question of consultation or any further debate. It is a firm and clear statement. There was, indeed, some doubt about the London borough elections, but here again the principle of the four-year period of office was very firmly established right from the very beginning. The Conservative Government made clear that there was a need for some consultation on certain details. Should it be whole-council elections, or one-third of the council each year? If it was whole-council elections, when should they take place?
These were matters on which there was a wide degree of consultation among the London boroughs, and a variety of options were put to the London boroughs by the Conservative Government of the time. One option even included a five-year period of office for the London boroughs, which, fortunately, they had the good sense to reject. It was made clear that, whatever was the majority view of the London boroughs would he accepted by the then Conservative Government and carried out.
The right hon. Member for Crosby made it clear, during the Report stage of the 1972 Act when this section was being included, that there would be no question of ordering something which was not wanted by the London local government.
The results of the consultation were absolutely clear, in that twenty-five of the thirty-two London boroughs favoured whole-council elections. To make it clear that there was no party issue on this, I might point out that seven Conservative-controlled boroughs were included in that majority.
It was also clear in the eyes of London local government that the simplest method of bringing this into operation was to exend the life of the present council to 1978. That was accepted by the right hon. Member for Crosby, who said in a Written Answer on 19th December 1973, again clearly and without equivocation:

Councillors elected in 1974 will therefore serve until 1978."—[Official Report, 19th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 312.]
Elections took place on that basis. Candidates sought office on that basis Electors voted on that basis. It is a bit late in the day now for people to start going back on that sort of undertaking.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Hampstead suggested, the present Government during 1975 undertook a further wave of consultation with the London boroughs, because the arrangements beyond 1978 had been left in doubt. Again there was a very large majority of the London boroughs in favour of whole-council elections, and there were still seven Conservative-controlled boroughs included in the majority.
There was also consultation about the timing of the elections: should they be held mid-way between GLC elections or, as they are now, a year after the GLC elections? Again it was clear that the London Boroughs Association favoured the present arrangement continuing of elections for the London boroughs being held a year after the GLC election. The London Labour Party felt the same way. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives also favoured that proposal and, dare I say it, the London Conservative Party also favoured that arrangement.
In those circumstances, I find it very hard to understand how the Opposition can really suggest that this is some sort of wicked Machiavellian Socialist plot to rig elections, when the whole proposal originated to begin with from a Conservative Government and has been supported by a large measure of Conservative opinion in London local government.
Why has there been this sudden, abrupt change in the attitude of the Opposition—not so much a U-turn; more a corkscrew? The only answer that I can suggest—and it was made clear in the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead—is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite sense the possibility of some short-term political gain. That is what is really motivating them in this debate. For that, they are prepared to throw overboard their undertakings to London local government—undertakings given with all the authority of ministerial office. They are prepared to throw into confusion London local government, which has based its planning for the past two and


a half years on the clear understanding that its elections would be delayed for one year.
It should be made clear that we are not here to debate the quality of the present leadership of the Greater London Council. Nor are we here to debate the appalling housing record of the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council, or to expose the social services record of the Bexley Borough Council, which is about the meanest borough in London. We are here to debate whether undertakings, clearly and freely given by the Conservative Party when in power two and a half years ago, are to be honoured. I do not think that it is a good thing for politics or for the House of Commons to see the way in which right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition are trying to wriggle out of their commitment for narrow political gains.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I rise with some trepidation, not being a London Member, but there are two Liberals on the GLC, and that was an achievement when it happened.
I find myself in the position of having to vote against the Order not because I do not agree that GLC elections should take place every fourth year, nor that the office of alderman shall be abolished, but because it does not bring London borough elections into line with metropolitan districts, whereby there are elections every year for one-third of the councillors. That, after all, is set out in Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1972 and spelt out in detail in Section 7(3).
The London Liberal Party passed a resolution supporting that intention way back in September 1974. Our reason, which no doubt was in the mind of the then Conservative Government, was that if the whole council elections continue, as is intended by the Order, after 1978 there is a real prospect of local government becoming increasingly remote from the ordinary elector. I support the four-year term because local councillors should be given a chance to get into office and to deal with matters without looking over their shoulders and worrying about elections coming up, and even an outsider can see that that is what has happened in London over the past 10 to

15 years. The proposal is also palpably inconsistent with what is going on in the rest of the country.
I am, however, rather sorry to be going into the Opposition Lobby because I cannot commend the attitude of the Tory Party in this matter to the electorate. It so happens that, without payment and without recourse to a certain person at present unfortunately resident in North Devon, I have come across a certain letter from one Horace Cutler. It fell into our lap, and it says:
I am writing to every Conservative peer with the unqualified approval of the leader
—"the Iron Lady"—
and her senior colleagues.
He says that tonight
the London Councillors Order will be debated and voted upon. Its purpose is to postpone GLC and London borough elections by one year to 1977 and 1978 respectively. I am hoping you will attend the House and vote against the Order, thus ensuring a GLC election in 1976.
My reasons for seeking your support are:

(a) no one should deny the electorate the choice to which it is entitled, especially in view of the appalling Labour record in County Hall.
(b) this is a golden opportunity both to dispel the feeling in some quarters that the Opposition is ineffective and for the Lords to be seen as the champions of democracy.
(c) the Order is believed to be defective"

—I think that point has been made and I agree with it—
and the governing legislation is not concise and allows for different interpretations. To avoid this, legislation is necessary.

(d) the political implications are considerable:

(i) We have no major urban power base. To win London would be to attract support and encourage future success.
(ii) My judgment is that the sooner the election the better our chances. We could even capture ILEA in 1976 (I do not need to tell you how poorly it stands in the public eye at present) and this would inhibit the Education Bill. A minor upturn in the economy plus an improvement in the employment situation would gain popularity for the Government (rubbing off on Labour here) and Harold Wilson is adept enough to try to seek advantage from an election held in the euphoria of Jubilee celebrations in 1977.
(iii) Labour in County Hall are in disarray. An early election would shatter them, the more completely the shorter the notice given. We on the other hand are ready.


(iv) I fear that Labour's declaration of a standstill rate is a hedge against a 1976 election. It will not help them, but the cumulative financial difficulties which we would then inherit in 1977 would put us in an impossible situation.
(v) This could be a convenient issue for the Nationalists to embarrass the Government."

I cannot express too strongly my view that we must, for the sake of London and our Party, have an election this spring.
Who is putting party first?
If the chance recedes, it may never return. I therefore hope that I can rely on your support, which has certainly never been needed more, nor in a more important cause".
I am sorry to have to say that I shall go into the Lobby with the Conservatives tonight, for if anyone is putting party before the true interests of the electorate, it is the Conservative Party tonight.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: In one sense, it is difficult to follow that speech by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), because he has plainly stated the position of the Conservative Opposition and got it right. However, I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) was with me in 1971 in arguing the case for the very procedure now proposed. At no time did he dissent from the concept of four-year elections and that they should take place in 1977 and 1978. What is more, not one of his colleagues has at any time dissented. Tonight is the first occasion we have heard him endeavour to make a case for not approving the extension of one year. We have now heard the reason.
The hon. Member for Hampstead took the opportunity to misbehave himself by misquoting the facts and figures about the Greater London Council, so perhaps my best contribution to the debate will be to set matters right. The hon. Gentleman knows that in 1973, under his party's aegis, at a time when there was much more money about than there is today, the Tories on the GLC managed to build fewer than 4,500 homes. He has to admit tonight that the Labour-controlled GLC has already, in 1975, built more than 6,000 homes. The hon. Gentleman's worry is clear and understandable.
The hon. Gentleman has often heard us discuss the problem of GLC housing

maintenance. In their disastrous years of 1967–74, the Tories brought about a change of maintenance on GLC estates. They decided to take away caretakers, they took away people who knew about maintenance, and they introduced the travelling porter. The result was the unparalleled, disgraceful condition of GLC properties during those years. It was the bane of our lives. They not only attempted to cut costs but they made it impossible for tenants to get essential repairs done, and on top of that they had the effrontery to increase rents many times.
We have been told about the situation in dockland. During all their time, it was possible for the Tories to prepare plans for the use of dockland and get them through, but they wasted their time in fiddling and footling about, never able to make up their minds on anything they wanted to do.
One can see the hon. Gentleman's anger at the fact that the Labour-controlled GLC has stopped the selling of council homes at below cost. The Tory performance in the period 1967–74 in selling off council houses at far below their cost was in itself a scandal. It has been mentioned many times in the House, yet the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) took little or no interest in following these matters through. His role in the matter is, to say the least, surprising.
The right hon. Gentleman knew all along that there had to be, and would be, an Order made either by him or by his successors in order to ensure that these elections were held in 1977 and 1978. Yet he has sat here tonight keeping very quiet so far, though I have no doubt that he will seek to be called a little later so that he can take us on a long and tortuous route through the legalities, trying to persuade us that what he said then was not what he meant or that something else was what he meant though he did not say it.

Mr. Graham Page: I have risen every time to try to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.

Mr. Brown: Since he called me first, it will take you longer to explain why, if you said what you said, you did not mean it, or, if you meant it, you did not say it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. So far as I know, I have made no observations on the matter.

Mr. Brown: No doubt, if you had, Sir, you would have said the same as I have said, having heard the right hon. Gentleman.
The Labour Party has published its housing strategy for London, which should be completed and accepted by the boroughs by the autumn of 1976. No wonder the hon. Member for Hampstead is worried about this. He knows what it will mean for the people of London, for whom his own party did not provide.
The Labour-controlled GLC has also stopped the building of multi-storey flats—something that the Tories would never have done. The Labour GLC is spending £15 million on the rehabilitation of old inter-war properties and estates and plans to spend more next year. When in office, the Tories failed to do anything about those estates and they are angry to see this amount spent now.
Under Labour, the GLC has taken into control 7,000 properties, extending security of tenure to 20,000 tenants who were previously subject to being thrown out, so the hon. Gentleman could not address himself to the Order. He is caught by his own words in 1971–72 and those of his right hon. Friend who supported that view at that time.
I have here a letter from Sir Desmond Plummer, supporting the importance of the Order and the four-year term. So what are the Opposition playing at? Whom are they trying to impress? If they want to debate the problems of London, we shall be delighted to meet them—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a Supply Day.

Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend says, they could give a whole day to the subject of London. Having proved themselves so inept this evening in using an hour and a half of valuable time on this party political stunt, I hope that they will devote their next Supply Day to the problems of London. We shall meet them willingly.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1972

set out the existing law with regard to elections to the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. It had no intention of altering the law with regard to London. It merely set out the law as it then was. One of my hon. Friends, in a Parliamentary Question, asked me about the intentions for the future. Quite rightly at the time, I said, I think, that the intention was that the GLC elections should be this year. That undoubtedly was the intention at that time. It was also the intention, as I think I made clear at the time, that London should be brought into line with the metropolitan county councils, the metropolitan districts and the conurbations. In that respect the metropolitan districts were to have elections every year except in the fourth year. A third of the council was elected every year.
The order raises two issues. The first concerns the Greater London Council and four-year elections. I have no complaint about that. However, I do complain that the election is to be postponed until next year and will not be held this year, although I certainly expressed the intention, at the time, that it should be held this year.
The House is faced with a Greater London Council which seeks to bring before it a Private Bill which usurps the power of Parliament and takes power to the London Council. That is what we wish to stop. This presents an entirely new situation.
Is an Opposition to be held to what it said when it was in Government? There have been two General Elections and a change of policy by the local authorities. We are perfectly entitled to say that we have changed our mind. We think it right that there should be elections this year to show how the public feel about the Greater London Council.

Mr. John Silkin: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman and I shared two things—a love of local government and a love of democracy. Moreover, we both serve a profession which likes to believe that it accepts the truth. Let the right hon. Gentleman listen to his own words in 1972, because they are as valid today as they were then. He said:
We are taking those powers for the benefit of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs to enable us to do what


they want us to do. I assure my hon Friend
—the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams)—
that there is no question of the Secretary of State ordering something which is not wanted by those local authorities ".—[Offcial Report, 17th July 1972; Vol. 841, c. 117.]
As I am merely following what the right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion how can he possibly take the point of view which he is taking today?

Mr. Page: After two General Elections the Opposition are entitled to think again about the Greater London Council.
Turning to the London boroughs, the Secretary of State is given power, by Order, to bring the London boroughs into line with the metropolitan districts, and that is all he is entitled to do. Under Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Secretary of State was empowered to bring forward an Order to make the London borough elections in the same years as the metropolitan district elections. That is not what he has done in the Order. He has still left the London borough elections as "whole-council elections", to use that shorthand term, and not introduced the annual election of councils as in the metropolitan districts. In that respect I believe that the Secretary of State has gone beyond the powers which were given to him under Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1972. He has not brought the London boroughs into line with the metropolitan districts. Therefore, to that exent the Order is invalid. If it is invalid in one respect, it is invalid as a whole.

Mr. Cartwright: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the Order can be made only to bring the London boroughs in line with the metropolitan districts, why, when he was in power, did he offer the London boroughs a different option—the option of whole-council elections?

Mr. Page: The London boroughs did not take that option. They agreed to Section 8 as it was. Section 8 merely allows the Secretary of State to bring the London boroughs into line with the metropolitan districts. Therefore, the Order to that extent is invalid.
Tonight we are debating not the London boroughs so much as the Greater

London Council. I believe that it is wholly constitutional for an Opposition, after having gone through two General Elections, to say, "We have now to consider the circumstances in which the GLC is bringing before the House a Bill with immense powers to usurp Parliament ". and to see that that is prevented.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I suppose that to some extent I owe the House an apology, because it is the events in my constituency which have led to the Order being tabled and debated tonight. When the Greater London representative in my division, Sir Desmond Plummer, decided to resign, my constituency discovered that it could not have a by-election before the GLC election because there cannot be a GLC by-election within six months of a GLC general election. It was only when a clerk in the City Council turned up the fact that nothing had been done to postpone the GLC election that this omission was discovered.
It is ironic that if this event had not occurred, it is likely that the Leviathan of the Department of the Environment would not have discovered it until somebody, about April, said, "We must have the GLC election this year."
Another irony is that, irrespective of how the Order is voted upon tonight, my constituents will have the power to hold a by-election this year. If the Order is carried, my constituents will have a by-election under the terms of the Order. If it is defeated, my constituents, together with all the other London constituencies, will be able to have an election this year.
My constituents are generous. They do not want to hoard the privilege and pleasure of the chance to show the views of Londoners on what the GLC is about. They would like to share this opportunity with all the London constituencies this spring.
There has been a charge of an element of inconsistency in the attitude of the Opposition. It does not lie in the mouths of Ministers or of Back Benchers on the Government side to talk of inconsistency in electoral matters relating to London. My right hon. and hon. Friends will recall that in 1967, the then Labour Government and Home Secretary—we still have the same Home Secretary—decided that the borough elections would be in


that year. However, they then decided to move them on a year to 1968. They changed their minds. They hoped to reap an electoral advantage. What happened? The Labour-controlled councils were swept from power by even bigger majorities.
Another example of electoral inconsistency by the London Labour Party was in the spring of 1970. London Members who were in the House at that time will recall that the Government first decided not to introduce the Boundary Commission's recommendations for the whole country, but then said, "No. We will introduce the proposals for London." A Bill was prepared and enormous discussions were carried out in order that London could be rejigged. Then, a month later, they said,:" No. We have changed our minds. We will not do that. We will fight London on the old boundaries." When it conies to the London Labour Party, we can be sure that electoral malpractice triumphs over consistency.
We are seeking to defeat the Order to give all Londoners the opportunity to show their views of Labour's control of the GLC over the last three and a half years. That control has been completely disastrous.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) complains that we are using this opportunity to have an open debate on London. Yet, in Opposition, he applied a tin opener to the Greater London (General Powers) Bill and the Greater London (Money) Bill and we had debates on London. Indeed, he was trying to argue that the Labour-controlled GLC's housing record is something to be proud of. I shall tell him what has happened. Under Labour control, in 1972 rents amounted to 70 per cent. of housing revenue. This year they will run at about 30 per cent. Who is paying the difference? The ratepayers. They are paying a subsidy of £60 million. That is why the ratepayers in constituencies other than mine want the opportunity to express their hostility to this policy.
Where has this policy left us? The GLC housing revenue this year, less rates, will be £51 million. The cost of maintenance and management of GLC estates is £55 million, so that the rents less rebates do not match the cost of maintaining and

managing the estates. It would be better for the GLC to give each tenant his own council house or flat. These are the economics of lunacy, where not even the cost of maintenance and management are met by the rental revenue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) mentioned, the way in which London Transport has been managed in the last three years has been disastrous. The deficit this year is £110 million. Who will meet it? The ratepayers, at a cost of £60 million. Even this will not prevent fare increases. There were two last year and there will be another this spring.
That is why the Conservative Party in London wants the opportunity to have a GLC election this year. The GLC is a monstrous bureaucracy. It is the last of the big spenders. It has overspent and it is overstaffed. The first thing that we have to do is to get Conservative control of it. Having done that, we must slim down its powers.
That is why we shall vote against the Order. I am sure that most Londoners would welcome the chance to go to the polls this spring.

11.32 p.m.

Miss Jo Richardson: I want to bring the House back from the persiflage that we have heard from Opposition Members to a consideration of the Order. The hon. Member for St Marylebone (Mr. Baker) talked about inconsistencies. In fact, it is Opposition Members who are being inconsistent—and dishonest, not to say destructive. We hope that they are also destructible. They have created a situation tonight which the general public and hon. Members on the Government side of the House had expected elections—as they were planned by the then Government, who are now members of the Opposition and whom we expect to remain members of the Opposition for many years to come, not only in this House but in the Greater London Council.
I want to give the House one or two pieces of information and to remind hon. Members opposite of some things they may have forgotten. When they were in government it was their policy to bring about the situation that is dealt with by this Order. In the Conservative's term of office in the GLC, on 22nd June


1971, the General Purposes Committee reported to the Secretary of State for the Environment. He had sought the Council's observations on this problem, and the General Purposes Committee had responded by saying that the Order that we are debating tonight was what it wanted. Yet again, on 14th December in the same year, the General Purposes Committee reported that
We are seeking an amendment to provide a four-year term
—precisely what we are debating tonight and precisely the terms of the Order that we are seeking to approve.
On 23rd January 1973 the General Purposes Committee reaffirmed its intention to have a four-year period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) referred to a letter from Sir Desmond Plummer, written in January 1973 to the then Home Secretary, Mr. Robert Carr—now Lord Carr. It says:
Dear Robert, I enclose a copy of an official letter from the Council to the Home Office on the subject of the term of office of this Council which, as you know, has recorded its support for a four-year term.
It goes on to press the then Home Secretary to introduce this Order. That is precisely what we intend to do.
In this economic crisis Conservative Members have been baying for blood and for local authorities to cut back public expenditure. The GLC has, at the Government's request, cut its public expenditure to the bone. Do hon. Gentlemen realise that the administrative cost to the GLC of an election this year would be £500,000? I am assured by the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of the GLC that he has not one brass farthing in the coffers.

Sir Anthony Royle: Sir Anthony Royle rose—

Miss Richardson: I shall not give way.

Sir Anthony Royle: Sir Anthony Royle rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When it is quite clear that the hon. Lady will not give way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Miss Richardson: I am assured by the chairman—

Sir Anthony Royle: Sir Anthony Royle rose—

Miss Richardson: I am assured by the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee that at the Government's request he has cut expenditure as far as possible and that he does not have one penny left.

Sir Anthony Royle: Sir Anthony Royle rose—

Miss Richardson: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman might as well give up.

Sir Anthony Royle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not most unusual in a short debate such as this, and one in which hon. Members on both sides have given way, that the hon. Lady should refuse to give way because she is unable to answer the question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Miss Richardson: I had always understood that it was the prerogative of the hon. Member who was speaking to give way or not. Perhaps we should have a few more women in this House.
In case in the hullabaloo my final point has not been heard, I repeat that an election this year—and we shall not have one because the Order will go through tonight—will cost public money, which is precisely the opposite of what hon. Gentlemen seek to achieve. I know that hon. Members will vote for the Order so that elections will take place, as Conservative Members originally intended, every four years.

Sir Anthony Royle: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very discourteous of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) flagrantly to disregard your direction from the Chair at this stage of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sir Anthony Royle: Sir Anthony Royle rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As this is a short debate, which has to stop at 12.04 a.m., and two winding-up speeches have yet to be heard, it would help progress if we were allowed to get on with it.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to join in


the congratulations and welcome to your accession to the Chair. Most of us have sat under your chairmanship in Standing Committees. Some of us have even had the possibly doubtful pleasure of sitting there for 27 hours at a stretch, during long summer days when we all admired your patience and forbearance on those occasions. We wish you long office in the Chair.
A debate on an Order of this kind is invariably taken as an opportunity for London Members to ventilate their opposing political attitudes and to demonstrate the manner in which their distinct philosophies can be translated into practical administrative terms. Not only did my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) do that; the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) also indulged themselves in this particular exercise.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Minister knows—wearing the Garrick Club tie—
All the world's a stage.
Sometimes it is of advantage to one party to do this, sometimes to the other. No one ever really takes any objection to that, but, if the truth be admitted, not much notice of it either.
However, tonight we are concerned with a more immediate proposition—whether the affairs of our great metropolis are being run in such an incompetent manner, whether the services are in such risk of breakdown, that its citizens must be given an early opportunity to exercise their democratic right and say "Enough is enough". The House is being asked, by this Order, to deny them that right. It is a responsibility that we must weigh most carefully, because what we would be saying tonight is not whether there should be a change of administration this year but whether the people may choose that for themselves.
It is, therefore, not entirely or simply a party-political matter. It is even less so because the present Greater London Council administration is itself undecided in the direction in which it wishes to go, and it is riven by internal division. The past year has been one of sackings,

very often, and rebellions in the majority party. The result is one of hesitation, muddle and bad government.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: Call for Ted!

Mr. Rossi: We have seen—reference has been made to it tonight—how the present GLC administration falsely gained office on promising to the electorate not to increase transport fares and eventually to move into a free fare system. But it has now entirely reversed this policy, and as a result, London's fares will have risen 212 per cent. between last March and this April. Not even the Government have been responsible for that rate of inflation.
What has been the consequence of this? Have the bus or underground services improved? There are not enough spare parts to keep all the buses on the road, and 250 buses stand idle because they are too big for London's streets. Trains are better, but only this administration at the GLC could ensure the purchase of trains too big for the tunnels! The continuing use of pre-war rolling stock is a matter for recurring anxiety among the daily users.
It is no wonder, therefore, that six members of the Labour majority party have been reported to the London Labour Party for rebelling against the way their transport policy is being run.
Housing—which hon. Members have also mentioned—as we all accept and know, is London's most serious social problem, with homelessness and that unattractive symptom of homelessness, squatting, growing weekly. What is the situation? House building has dropped, not because of the re-allocation of resources—for example, for the improvement of existing stock—but because of sheer bureaucratic muddle. But 10 years' supply of building land is in hand, with a pitiable programme.
The obsession of the GLC seems to be to squander public money to municipalise or acquire existing houses two-thirds of which are already occupied and which do not provide a single new home or new unit of accommodation, instead of getting on and dealing with London's real needs.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch referred to dockland, that


vast acreage which is growing weeds and breeding vermin whilst the GLC quarrels with the five Labour-controlled borough councils about who is to have the lion's share of the development. The GLC administration is in complete disarray. It does not know in which direction to go, and its members are continually bickering amongst themselves.
Why is it that my constituent, Mrs. Gladys Dimson, with whom I disagree fundamentally about many matters but for whose integrity as a housing chairman I have great respect, was unceremoniously pushed out of office? Certainly some of her colleagues were so appalled at that treatment that they honourably and courageously refused to accept office in such circumstances, and the Prime Minister himself acknowledged this injustice—an odd state of affairs—by seeing that she was honoured in the Honours List.
In the arena of planning the complaints from the public are continual and consistent—of indecision, of procrastinuation, and of refusals, not on correct and proper planning grounds, but from sheer short-sighted political motivation. Indeed, only last month an inspector had to advise the Secretary of State that the GLC, in refusing a planning permission in a particular case, was acting from other motivation than pure planning considerations and was acting unlawfully. That is a most serious charge to be made against any local authority.
The result of that attitude towards the planning of our great city is that London's economic life is declining as no new investment of money is being pumped in to refurbish, to modernise, to provide new jobs and new homes. Yet at the same time the GLC laments and moans over the loss of jobs and the great exodus of population from a city in which the people no longer wish to live.
Can it be any wonder that the major debate outside the House today is not simply about a change of administration at County Hall but about whether the GLC should be allowed to continue to exist at all. There is a growing ground swell caught up and echoed in the daily Press for the abolition of the GLC, and the time may well come when the House will have to consider that demand seriously and carefully.
The present administration at County Hall has abandoned and completely lost sight of the essential strategic role of the GLC for which it was constituted. Instead, it spends its time arguing and bickering over parochial trivia for which as an organisation it is far too large and too remote to take decisions.
Undoubtedly, fuel is being added to these flames by something for which the GLC is not directly responsible but which has been mentioned by hon. Members, namely, education. There is an identification in the public mind because the tribe that runs the GLC also runs the ILEA—and with the same consequences of muddle, inefficiency—with the erection of concrete and glass palaces while discipline and education standards decline in an ever-increasing manner.
A full-scale independent inquiry should be held as a matter of urgency into the whole London education system. The literary levels of pupils are now below the national average, examination results are declining, and there is an ever-widening gap between the education authority and parents' confidence in its ability to look after the best interests of their children.
The GLC has perhaps done one thing well—it has made a modest contribution towards reducing unemployment. Despite the fact that the sewerage and ambulance services have been taken away, it has still been able to swell its work force by an extra 4,500 since the 1973 election. About 2,000 are firemen recruited as a result of the reduction in the working week, but what are the other 2,500 doing? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead mentioned, there are no outward signs of any increased productivity. Why are there nearly as many administrators as teachers in the education service? All that has happened is that there has been an increase in the enormous wage bill.
Hon. Members opposite have criticised our opposition to the Order, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has made clear that its legality is in grave doubt. The power of the Secretary of State under Section 8 (2) of the Act gives him power to alter the borough council elections in order to bring them in line with the metropolitan district council elections. The Order does not do that.
We are not taking this action for short-term electoral gains. We think that next year we shall do even better. We are opposing the Order because of the muddle, internecine strife, indecision and vacillation of the present administration. London has no Governor-General. Let Parliament do the job.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: May I also offer you my congratulations, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There may have been one or two moments in the debate when you thought you were Chairman of a Standing Committee.
I originally thought it was unnecessary to debate the Order, for reasons I have already given. I regarded myself as someone tidying up the debris left behind by the previous Conservative Government's disastrous reorganisation of local government. In many ways, I regarded myself as a ministerial Steptoe, removing the rubbish left by the Conservatives.
I find instead that, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said,
All the world's a stage.
It is sad to think that what we are considering is a play in which Hamlet is also the first grave-digger. The Order was fully considered by the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which was clearly satisfied or it would have reported to the House. And who is chairman of that Committee?
I am told that the Conservative Party was very worried, that it believed that the 1972 Act required the boroughs to be brought on to the basis of annual elections. In that case why did they consult the London authorities, asking them which system they preferred? The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) knows the answer as well as I do. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the London borough elections taking place—this was his version of Section 8 of his own Act—in the same year as the metropolitan districts. The right hon. Gentleman is misquoting his own Act because the subsection says
to secure that ordinary elections of London borough councillors are held
—not in the same years but—
in years in which ordinary elections of metropolitan district councillors are held".

The right hon. Gentleman is as good a lawyer as I am and he knows perfectly well what that means, because the rumour has it that he helped to draft that Act.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page rose—

Mr. Silkin: I will not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way!"] No, I cannot. The hon. Member for Hornsey stole my time and he knows it. We were supposed to have had 15 minutes each.
Let us consider the position about the consultations. The GLC elections were first announced by the then Home Secretary on 20th March 1973. That was repeated by the right hon. Member for Crosby on 25th July 1973 and confirmed by myself on 19th December last year with not a word of protest from anybody at the time. What about the borough councils and the all-out provisions announced by the right hon. Member for Crosby on 25th July 1973, confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman on 18th December 1973, and the announcement that the next elections would be whole councils in 1978—

Mr. Graham Page: That was two General Elections later.

Mr. Silkin: I believe that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) said that we had done nothing since the election on this because we were too busy. That is not true.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I said that nothing was said publicly.

Mr. Silkin: Then the hon. Gentleman should have been made aware that, in 1974, 21 London councils said that they were in favour of all-out provisions, and only nine said that they favoured annual elections. But the interesting thing about these statistics, of which the hon. Member was completely aware, is that seven Tory councils said that they were in favour of the all-out provisions and only six said that they favoured annual elections.
Did the right hon. Member for Crosby say "Two General Elections later"? I made the consultations and I received the answer, which was quite clear. But the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave this evening was one of the dustiest this House has seen.
What then of the Order? The consultations, on which both Governments agreed, took place. The Conservative councils by a majority in London clearly expressed the desire to do as the Order seeks. We know why.
Perhaps I may address myself to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). He and his party—I disagree with them, but that does not matter—have consistently said that they wanted annual elections. I take the point, and I understand their dilemma, but I appeal to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues—can they go into the Lobby with the Conservatives? There is a reasonable way of dealing with the matter. They should uphold the virtue of the Isle of Wight and abstain.
What is the reason for this phoney debate and the dusty answers obtained by the poor old right hon. Member for Crosby?

Mr. Graham Page: I am not as old as that.

Mr. Silkin: The House knows the reason, because the information was given to us by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. Poor Mr. Horace Cutler, looking around and observing the desolation of his party, decided to call in the Conservative Opposition to help him—poor misguided fellow. He cannot have visited the House for a long time. He must have thought "Ah, there is a Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons. They can do the job I cannot do. They can help me to get rid of these terrible fellows at County Hall who have built more houses than we ever did, who gave

free transport to the elderly and under-fives and free milk to the school children and who scrapped the absurd motorway proposals of the Tories." What a pity he looked around and chose the Conservative Opposition. The hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, who went against everything they had said in office in their desire to help their poor colleague at County Hall, had a price to pay.

Not everything that was done by the Conservative Administration of 1970 to 1974 was wrong. One or two of their minor activities were very good. One activity which was good was the taking of consultations on the Order, which we followed when the time came. I hope that Conservative Members will not think me pompous or patronising if I give them a word of advice. This is the witching hour when one should give advice. They need not be in such a hurry to attack the Labour GLC or Labour councillors. They need not be in such a hurry to attack the Labour Government. These are early days. They will have countless opportunities to do it. They will have years and years in which to attack the Labour GLC, Labour councillors and Labour Governments.

Mr. John Moore: The denial to the people of London of an opportunity to hold an election this year is appalling effrontery. The question that should be asked is: why is there to be no election for the people of London this year?

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 253.

Division No. 53.]
AYES
[12 5 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Bradley, Tom
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Archer, Peter
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Buchanan, Richard
Cronin, John


Ashton, Joe
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cryer, Bob


Atkinson, Norman
Campbell, Ian
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Canavan, Dennis
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whit[...]h)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cant, R. B.
Davidson, Arthur


Bates, Alf
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Bean, R. E.
Carter, Ray
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davis, Clinton (Ha[...] C)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cartwright, John
Deakins, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bishop, E. S.
Clemitson, Ivor
Delargy, Hugh


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Boardman, H.
Cohen, Stanley
Dempsey, James


Booth, Albert
Coleman, Donald
Doig, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Conlan, Bernard
Duffy, A. E. P.




Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rooker, J. W.


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Edge, Geoff
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rose, Paul B.


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Ted


English, Michael
Litterick, Tom
Sandelson, Neville


Ennals, David
Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Luard, Evan
Selby, Harry


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Flannery, Martin
McElhone, Frank
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Skinner, Dennis


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Magee, Bryan
Spriggs, Leslie


George, Bruce
Mahon, Simon
Stallard, A. W.


Gilbert, Dr John
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Stott, Roger


Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Swain, Thomas


Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Grocott, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Tierney, Sydney


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Harrison, walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbridge)
Tomlinson, John


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Torney, Tom


Hatersley, Rt Hon Roy
Molloy, William




Moonman, Eric
Tuck, Raphael


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
varley, Ht Hon Eric G.


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Horam, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Newens, Stanley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble, Mike
Ward, Michael


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Watkins, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Watkinson, John


Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, James (Pollok)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr David
Whitlock, William


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Padley, Walter
Wigley, Dafydd


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Parry, Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Woodall, Alec


Kaufman, Gerald
Radice, Giles
Woof, Robert


Kelley, Richard
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Miss Jo
Young, David (Bolton E)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. David Stoddart.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Beith, A. J.
Body, Richard


Altken, Jonathan
Bell, Ronald
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alison, Michael
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bottomley, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, W.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Berry, Hon Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Brittan, Leon


Baker, Kenneth
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Banks, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Brotherton, Michael







Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Penhaligon, David


Buchanan-Smith, A[...]ck
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Hooson, Emlyn
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Bulmer, Esmond
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Burden, F. A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Carson, John
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Channon, Paul
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cockcroft, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cope, John
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Cordle, John H.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rifkind, Malcolm


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean,Paul (N Somerset)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knox, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Drayson, Burnaby
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dunlop, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Shersby, Michael


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Silvester, Fred


Elliott, Sir William
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Farr, John
Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Spence, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCusker, H.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanley, John


Fox Marcus
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Freud, Clement
Madel, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stokes, John


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Marten, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.



Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter
Trotter Neville


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Molyneaux, James
Viggers, Peter


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Monro, Hector
Wakeham, John


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grieve, Percy
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Griffiths, Eldon
Morgan, Geraint
Wall, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walters, Dennis


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Warren, Kenneth


Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David
Wells, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nott, John
Younger, Hon George


Havers, Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley



Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Michael Roberts.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the London Councillors Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew Bennett be added to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
Ordered,
That the Member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests nominated this day shall continue to be a Member of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Ordered,
That Mr. Douglas Hurd be discharged from the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &amp;c., Bills and that Mr. Richard Body be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

SERVICE PENSIONS (COMMUTATION)

12.19 a.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Let me first congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your present office. Knowing your fleeting acquaintance with my constituency in days gone by, I am delighted that I have the honour of initiating the first Adjournment debate with yourself in the Chair. I note, too, that the Minister is suitably attired for this occasion.
I am grateful to have this opportunity to initiate this debate on the subject of the commutation of Royal Naval pensions, as illustrated by the case of my constituent Mr. R. A. Puckey, of Saltash. Since 1970, I have on a number of occasions made representations to successive Ministers responsible for the Royal Navy on the question of the commutation of Service pensions. This is hardly surprising since I represent a constituency in which a large number of former Service men live, and, of course, we are adjacent to the garrison city of Plymouth.
I believe that during the period of office of the present Minister I have made

representations on this subject on behalf of two constituents. I am pleased to be able to say that in one instance the case was resolved to my constituent's satisfaction, unlike that which concerns Mr. Puckey.
Mr. Puckey served for 24 years in the Royal Navy, and at the time of his leaving the Navy he held the rank of Chief Petty Officer. During that period he paid his full pension and insurance contributions. In 1970, in anticipation of his retirement, Mr. Puckey purchased the freehold of the Riverside Country Club in Saltash for £10,000. Since then he has spent over £20,000 on improvements and extensions, out of revenue from his business.
There is little doubt, therefore, that it has been a successful business venture. The premises provide a valued local amenity. They are widely used by local organisations and individuals for group functions. Furthermore, the existing market value of the business is about £60,000. Mr. Puckey has no bank overdraft at present, and his sole current liability is for £2,500, representing a loan from a national brewery company.
Mr. Puckey now wishes to embark on a major development scheme, since the existing site affords ample space. The plans involve the further expansion of existing facilities, plus the building of squash courts. To raise the finance for this project, my constituent wishes to commute the maximum part of his Royal Navy pension. He is supported in that application by both his accountant and his solicitor. I quote now from his solicitor's letter to me dated 17th September 1975:
Mr. and Mrs. Puckey, who are a prudent and hard-working couple, have not spared themselves in promoting the clubs and building up a successful business. Since taking over, they have improved and added to the premises, at the same time increasing membership. They have repaid moneys borrowed from the bank initially to purchase and develop the premises since they took them over, so that, given its full potential, the club would provide an even more rewarding return than at present.
There is still land within the club boundaries capable of development, and Mr. and Mrs. Puckey have plans for this.. With this in mind, we understand that Mr. Puckey has made application to commute his Naval pension, and this appears to be a prudent course of action which would undoubtedly result in a substantial increase in returns by


reason of additional membership, at the same time enhancing the value of the premises. We fail to see how this can be otherwise than for his distinct and permanent advantage.
His accountant has written to me in similar terms, and concludes:
After dealing with the business affairs of this club from its inception, it is my considered opinion that maximum commutation of my client's Royal Naval pension would definitely be to his distinct and permanent advantage.
His bank manager has confirmed to me that his financial situation is as I have described.
My constituent first approached me in April 1975 about the difficulties that he was experiencing in his desire to commute his Service pension. I first wrote to the Minister on 7th April 1975 and since then we have exchanged correspondence on four occasions. Such has been my constituent's sense of frustration, indeed annoyance, and my own disappointment at not being able to persuade the Minister of the justification of my constituent's case that I felt compelled to seek this debate.
The Minister has repeatedly said that commutation of a naval pension is a privilege and not a right. This I accept. He further states that commutation will be allowed only for some definite project or scheme which appears to the Ministry of Defence, on the facts before it, to be to the distinct and permanent advantage of the pensioner. Let us briefly consider those terms of reference.
My constituent's application is for a specific project. Both his lawyer and his accountant have confirmed in writing that in their view commutation of the pension will be to the distinct and permanent advantage of Mr. Puckey. I therefore ask the Minister whether, in rejecting his application, the pensions office took into account the opinions of my constituent's professional advisers, and if not, why not? What other evidence did the office seek in making its judgment, and from whom?
The relevant section applicable to Mr. Puckey's request and the conditions governing commutation of Royal Naval pensions concerns the purchase or expansion of a business. This states that the applicant must be employed in the business on a full-time basis. In addition, it will normally be necessary to

produce audited accounts for the previous two or three years to demonstrate that it provides a good and full-time living. Furthermore, the net income from it, or net income expected, must he more than the amount of pension to be forfeited. Finally, evidence that the applicant has some experience in the type of business proposed is also essential. I should have thought that by describing the recent history of my constituent's business activity and the view expressed by his financial and legal advisers I have demonstrated that Mr. Puckey does satisfy these criteria in a conclusive way.
The one area which suggests grounds for hesitation concerns the fact that commutation is an expensive way of raising capital and that normally the Ministry requires the applicant to give reasons if a bank loan or mortgage is not obtained. The explanation for the latter is quite straightforward. My constituent takes the view—I support his sentiments—that after serving his country for 24 years and, more recently, having proved his ability to be a successful business man he should be given the opportunity and the responsibility to use his money as he sees fit, or at least to be given some rational and meaningful explanation of why this is not allowed.
After all, Mr. Puckey's record to date is not in dispute. I should have thought that in these days of high inflation it was a perfectly natural and human desire not to be saddled with the additional financial pressures of servicing a bank loan or mortgage repayment. If the Minister persists in using this high cost argument, perhaps he will state the comparable figures in a case such as I have described. It seems to me that the Ministry in this case is prepared to disregard its own advice to former Service men who wish to commute part or all, within the given limits, of their pension.
The public expenditure aspect as quoted at length to me by the Under-Secretary in his letter of November 1975 is totally misplaced. No one is suggesting that in all cases Service pensions should be allowed automatically to be converted into an instant capital asset. Indeed, in this context, I find it most surprising that in 1976 former officers should receive more flexible and preferential treatment. Apparently, they can still commute up to 50 per cent of their


pension although other ranks are restricted to £1,000. I am not certain what has happened to the public expenditure consideration, but surely in this day and age of a highly trained, sophisticated Armed Service this paternalism on the part of the Royal Navy to its former non-commissioned personnel is somewhat out of date.
Having examined this case in considerable depth, I still believe that my constituent's case is worthy of more sympathetic consideration than it has received so far. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to review his earlier decision or at least provide some cogent reasons why this application should be rejected.

12.31 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): I am sure that the House is deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) for the passionate but moderate way in which he put forward his case. Indeed, that is the purpose of Adjournment debates. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituent will recognise that his Member of Parliament has done everything possible to put his case fairly and squarely before me and my Department.
I am always conscious that in pensions matters, apart from the philosophy which underlies the policies and principles, fundamentally important as they are, there are also the human aspects which stem from the implementation of the rules. What the hon. Member said about the case of one of his constituents has brought this home, and I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity to explain the present arrangements which provide for the commutation of Service pensions.
Before I deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific case, I should like to describe some of the basic principles involved. The fundamental aim of our Service pension scheme, which incidentally has undergone considerable improvement in recent years, is to provide for life an assured inflation-proofed cash income for retired Service men and their families. The terminal grant awarded on discharge is meant to provide sufficient capital together with the pensioner's own resources to assist his resettlement in

civilian life. Thus, after a full career the typical Service pensioner receives on discharge a pension of about half his pay plus a tax-free terminal grant of three times his annual rate of pension. As the House will recognise, this is very much on a par with the better occupational schemes in the public or private sectors. The further surrender of some of the cash pension—a minimum pension of £2.50 has to remain—in return for a larger tax-free capital sum has for long been a feature of Service pension arrangements. However, I should make it clear at this stage, when considering the hon. Gentleman's constituent, that this commutation is in all cases not a right but, as the hon. Gentleman said, a privilege awarded at the complete discretion of the Defence Council.
What is the guiding principle for the award of this highly-prized privilege? I think that a quotation from the journal of a service pensioners' society puts the matter in a nutshell. It says:
Commutation is a subject in itself and therefore reference will only be made to some of the more important points, the most important being that the act of commutation is irrevocable. Once you have commuted you have committed yourself for life. You can never put the clock back. Also, once you have commuted, you will not receive any subsequent increase your retired pay code may attract on that portion of your retired pay which you have commuted. Now that retired pay is compensated for the rise in the cost of living, by commuting you will be giving up part of your income which will always maintain its purchasing power.
Finally, it is stressed that
commutation is a serious step and officers are strongly advised to weigh most carefully the pros and cons before committing themselves.
That is advice from a society designed to safeguard the interests of pensioners.
Our guiding principle, therefore, is to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that commutation, whatever its attraction in the short term, would still be beneficial in the long term when, notwithstanding a man's present circumstances and expectations, adversity or ill health could make full preservation of assured income assume particular importance.
In the case of other ranks and noncommissioned officers, commutation is permitted up to 25 per cent. of pension, or enough to raise a capital sum of £1,000, whichever is less, subject only to medical fitness. This is known as


special resettlement commutation and must be undertaken within six months of retirement.
Commutation beyond this is normally considered only for a specific purpose—the hon. Gentleman has referred to this matter—such as the purchase of a particular business or house if it would be to the person's distinct and permanent advantage. This is spelt out in detail in a document given to all who retire. By this we mean that the commutation agreed is the minimum necessary to complete a purchase after use of the pensioner's own resources and maximum recourse to the normal business facilities such as bank loans, mortgage, credits and hire purchase.
Bearing in mind that pensions are primarily to provide an inflation-proofed secure income at the end of the working life, these orthodox means are usually a more satisfactory and less expensive means of raising short-term capital.
The case of Mr. Puckey, raised by the hon. Gentleman, has, I assure him, been very carefully considered against the principles and criteria that I have just described.
Mr. Puckey left the Royal Navy in February 1975 at the age of 40 with the rank of Chief Petty Officer. He was awarded a pension and terminal grant appropriate to his rank and length of service, and he took advantage of the special resettlement commutation to realise a further £1,000, bringing the total capital sum that he received to over £4,000.
Mr. Puckey and the hon. Gentleman, on his behalf, have, however, made a number of requests to commute the rest of his pension, apart from the minimum, to which I have already referred, of £2·50 a week which has to remain. That would raise a further capital sum of about £10,000 which it would be proposed to use to expand facilities at the country club which Mr. Puckey owns and which, I understand, has proved highly successful.
For the reasons I have explained in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, our normal practice in these cases is to grant commutation only where the business is small and expansion is essential to turn it into a viable economic proposition and where there is no alternative way of raising capital.
The evidence I have received, however, based on all relevant available information and details, is that Mr. Puckey has indeed a thriving and prosperous business for which he should be able to raise capital through orthodox financial channels. I am afraid, therefore, that, unless there are any changes in these circumstances, I have no alternative but to continue to refuse his application for further commutation.
The hon. Gentleman said that we operate commutation on what might be described as excessively paternalistic and anachronostic bases—paternalistic, no doubt, because, as I have explained, we try to strike a balance between the shorter and longer-term inteersts of our pensioners; anachronistic because officers can normally commute up to half their retirement pay without question.
I think that Service Ministers of all recent Governments have found this differentiation—which goes back to the last century, when it was felt by those concerned that there were grounds for protecting improvident soliders and sailors from squandering pensions—hard to accept today, when there can be no argument but that non-commissioned ranks leaving the Services are indeed mature and responsible men, in almost all cases well able to take their own decisions.
One of the difficulties in trying to find a solution—as in the case of all projected pensions improvements—is the cost. In the present economic climate these difficulties are even more acute. It is a question of deciding where the limited resources can best be spent, and the emphasis has been on making other pensions improvements and, with pensions generally, in giving most help where the need is greatest.
To bring other ranks into line with the present terms for officers would be likely to involve substantial extra cost in the early years, following any changes, in the defence budget, which is already under heavy pressure. We could not very well bring other ranks into line with a reduced facility for officers, but even if we could it would still be a costly proposition and would also mean denying officers an entitlement that existed under their terms and conditions of service.
New arrangements would also require acceptance by the Inland Revenue. Although, therefore, I do not dissent in principle from the proposition that, ideally, we should in the long term be moving towards new rules to be applied equally to officers and other ranks—rules that might allow us to relax somewhat the very strict criteria that we have to apply in cases such as Mr. Puckey'sI see no practicable alternative, for the time being, to the continuation of the present arrangements. All I can say to the hon. Member, who, I repeat, has put the case coherently and forcefully, is that I trust that he will appreciate that in the wider interests we are acting in what we believe to be a fair and reasonable way.

Mr. Hicks: Before the Minister sits down may I ask him, in the light of what he said, to have another look at the document that is issued to Service people on their retirement? I ask him particularly to look at Section C, headed

The purchase or expansion of business",
because what he said in his reply is certainly different in content from what is on the paper that I have in my possession this evening. I think, in all sincerity, that this misleads constituents such as Mr. Puckey when they are making application for commutation of their pensions in the circumstances that I have described.

Mr. Judd: I understand and appreciate the thoroughly reasonable approach of the hon. Member, but I must emphasise that we have looked and re-looked at the paper to which he refers. If he likes to send us specific observations and, perhaps, proposed amendments to the text—amendments that he thinks would meet the situation more adequately—we shall give his views very serious attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to One o'clock.